GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label Romney-Ryan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney-Ryan. Show all posts

Friday, November 16, 2012

Why Mitt Lost-A View From The Trenches

by tom Whitmore at TPN – links and comments in italics added by AskMarion:

Some will say Mitt was not conservative enough, others will say his statement that he was “Extremely conservative” was a kiss of death and there are various and sundry claims in between. One fact remains, this year with exception of a few conservative challengers most notably Ted Cruz in Texas, conservatives did not do well in the challenge races. Richard Mourdock, Tommy Thompson and Todd Akin are examples. There is more to winning than simply being a conservative.

There is also the crowd that says the problem was in the messaging. Of course many of these folks are in the messaging business, biased opinions anyone? Sure Mitt could have explained some of his ideas and plans better; but then the President hasn’t explained anything except for all of the things the GOP would take from everybody.

So what really happened? It was a tactical failure of the party not so much a messaging or degree of conservatism failure.

Many Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters skewed the vote as they said they would. They were very active across the nation in local party, congressional district committee and state party committee elections securing many positions in the Quadrennial year reconstitution of party officers and delegate seats to the state and national conventions. This should have been evident as it was happening and the magnitude of severity recognized especially after experiences at state and local conventions and at the RNC convention in August.

It is a necessity to vote for delegates to state and national conventions in the Quadrennial year, but to elect new party leadership just months before the Presidential cycle elections as is the case with many states like Virginia; is itself an invitation to disaster. At very least an invitation to disruption as the Ron Paul supporters provided at the National Convention. In Virginia for example, AG Ken Cuccinelli had a slate of preferred candidates for the Republican Party of Virginia State Central Committee and delegates to the RNC Convention that leaned heavily toward Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. That slate did remarkably well in the District convention elections, but then many of them went on to provide great embarrassment to the Republican Party at the national convention, with the help of other Libertarian and Paul supporters from other states.

RNC & State Victory programs ran top down programs and ignored the needs of grassroots activists as they have in the past few elections. Collateral materials were refused them for efforts outside of the Victory program, even for 20-30 year party stalwarts. Collateral materials were late or in short supply even for the Victory program. Again as in 2008 there was mass confusion between presidential campaign staff, RNC staff and state party staffs in determining who had what responsibilities. Some of the short supply and logistical confusion was a result of the short 2 month campaign period due to a late August RNC Convention.

Obama started actively campaigning in the streets in January, giving him effectively an 8 month head start. The RNC has done conventions as early as July, why not in this all important year buy as much time for a concerted effort as possible?

The GOP did not go toe to toe with the Obama grassroots machine by ignoring Texting and largely not using other Social media effectively. Again Obama humbled the GOP with his use of the text and the tweet.

In addition Romney and the GOP ignored the largest and a fast growing voter block in America, the Hispanic vote. This is a community that shares the values and principles of the GOP right down the line, yet a large majority vote Democrat, because there has been no effective outreach to them. The GOP’s efforts this year amounted to little more than window dressing.

I think the RNC, Romney campaign, many state and local committees and many Congressional campaigns believed Obama was so bad he couldn’t possibly win reelection. Even Mitt admitted that he had only prepared a victory speech! As a result they did not put as much effort into the election as was required. Couple this with the rejection of any grassroots efforts that ran outside of the Victory operation and you had an inevitable disaster.

Obama’s folks knew that he looked bad, so they went to work in earnest as early as January while our nominating process was still going on, not to mention how brutal the GOP primary fight was. And Team Obama was smart, working under the radar and using paid help to knock doors and phone bank. Voter registration and outreach into the Hispanic community were top priorities. There were many allegations of voter fraud but they probably won’t amount to enough to change the outcome, at least not of the presidential election… but we need to pursue each and every allocation just in case the ever growing reports really are more massive than expected', plus there could be downline elections affected positively by those recounts, like Allen West in Florida.  And just like with the grassroots secession movements presently going on; both remind the White House and others that the American people are paying attention.

There you have it; there is no magic bullet to fix the problem facing the GOP. They have to realize they must work harder and smarter, not take their base for granted and always be wary of the Libertarians; too many of them have recently shown they are only in it to support their candidates and endorsees or to otherwise skew things for the GOP. And for heaven’s sake do not ignore the Latino vote!

Execution, tactics and logistics were key determinants in the loss. Messaging and candidates records played a lesser role. Obama’s win was proof of that, if the electorate was paying attention to the message or the candidates records, no way could Obama win reelection. The dumbing down of our population and the manipulation of the news by the left leaning media are certainly two large components in that arena.

Most voters are predisposed to vote one way or the other. Certainly there are some independent swing voters that need cajoling and will respond to a strong articulate message, but the winning game changer is who can do the best job to energize, pump up and rally their base to go to the polls on E-day. 3-million less conservatives turned out to vote for Mitt Romney than they did for John McCain, enough to have made the difference, and Sarah Palin could certainly have been responsible for the enthusiasm of those 3-million turning out! Pundit, Pollster and former Bill Clinton Advisor Dick Morris says the real reason Romney didn’t win is that the whites who supported Romney didn't turn out to vote.  If that is the case, we can only shake our heads!!

If the GOP wants to win in the future they are going to have to adjust their tactical plan and learn to listen to and support the GOP grassroots activists, after all they are the feet in the street, the voice on the phones and the keys to voter turnout.

Success is not measured by numbers of attempted contacts it is measured by the votes on Election Day that resulted from live in person contacts.

To ignore the grassroots and the base is to accept defeat.

Bobby Jindal, who is set to become chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has called on the party to reshape its tone when presenting ideas, especially to constituencies that traditionally vote Democratic. “We already have one liberal party”, he said,  “We don’t need another one.  We need to change the delivery or our message and outreach!”

Related:

Romney Did Not Lose

The New, And Worse, Watergate 

Amnesty won’t magically make Hispanics more Republican

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Romney Did Not Lose

clip_image002

By: Citizen Scribe - The NoisyRoom

Over the last few days I have watched as political “analysts” and assorted pundits alternately lamented and rejoiced and “analyzed” the results of the recent election.

I have watched and listened as self-important, self-appointed authorities opined and pontificated on the “reasons” for Romney’s loss.

And, as I removed myself from the emotional turmoil that surrounds this event, and as I examined the actual data, I arrived at a conclusion at odds with all these “experts” and purveyors of “correct” viewpoint: Romney didn’t lose.

Oh, the election boards and Secretaries of State and other officials have “deemed” that Obama won the election, but the truth is rather otherwise.

What Obama won was the vote count. Remember the maxim from Josef Stalin: “It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.”

I predicted that the only way Romney would lose was through vote fraud. As the election returns are now being finalized, we discover that in several districts the final counts added up to more than 100% of the actual registered voters in those areas. The “traditional” Press is, of course, entirely uninterested and incurious about these results, as we would expect from a Fourth-Estate-as-Fifth-Column media community.

Okay, fine, we now know that the election results are fraudulent, and we likewise know that the authorities and media will never acknowledge that possibility. What we now have is an “election” outcome that’s “official” but not legal, “official” but not true, “official” but for which the actual evidence will be destroyed, or already has been.

There is, however, a truth that will only be buried if we allow it to be. Romney didn’t lose. Romney won the support of a significant majority of Americans. The pretender in the White House knows this, his aides know this, and the people who mechanized this outcome know this. Oh, and the Press either knows it or suspects it, and is now deep enough into it that exposing it would mean revealing their own collusion and perfidy.

The reality, though, remains: the real, true majority of Americans did not ask for this outcome, did not support this result, and actually desire something very different from the plans they know this false president has for the nation.

Here is how it’s supposed to work: you know that you voted for Romney (or against Obama), but now you’re supposed to believe that “everybody else” wanted Obama. The “overwhelming majority” of people want Obama, want his policies, and want you to suffer. That’s what the Press will tell you, that’s what the authorities will tell you, that’s what the “official” version will be.

You are now supposed to “accept” your fate. You are now supposed to sit down and shut up. You are now supposed to “accept” the so-called “will of the people.” That’s what you’re supposed to do.

YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE UP. YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO SUCCUMB. You’re SUPPOSED to stop fighting, stop resisting, stop speaking out.

Well?

Yeah, okay, I can’t prove any of that. I don’t have any evidence that supports it. What I DO have is an analytic mind and a series of observations that inform me that the “result” we got is not supported by the events leading up to it.

So what I know and what I can prove are at odds. But there are times when you have to act on what you know, even when you’re being falsely told that what you know is wrong.

I’m still formulating how I need to proceed in light of this new understanding, but what I know, and what I need to factor into my future calculations is the fact that we — the people who love our country and favor fiscal sanity and subscribe to the ideals of the Founders — are not outnumbered. We remain in the majority.

I can’t remember ever having been here. I grew up in the ’60s, but served in the military rather than in Haight-Ashbury. I raised my family to be responsible and self-sufficient, just as my parents did. I guess you could say I was more or less aligned with the “establishment” of the day, even though I have for years disagreed with the trend toward more socialism and fascism.

Today, the Establishment has crossed a line. They have arrayed themselves against the majority of the American people.

I won’t be joining them. I won’t be agreeing with them. I won’t be accepting their “truth.” I will, instead, stand for my truth. And I suspect I am not alone.

The usurpers (for I can’t reasonably refer to them otherwise) are now the “establishment” even though they are really in the minority.

So… that makes us… what?

Well, what do you call someone who stands against the Establishment?

Feels kinda odd to be in those shoes, doesn’t it?

Welcome to the Resistance.

Related:

Allen West, Mitt Romney and the Massive Voter Fraud Machine  -->  Opportunity knocks –Loudly.  Cal Thomas encourages Reince Priebus RNC Chair, to lead the fight against massive presidential election voter fraud as well as race Allen West race in Florida.  You’ll be the biggest hero since Jefferson... says Cal

Allen West Wins Congressional Race: Report

SHAM RECOUNT SUNDAY: Allen West vs. Patrick Murphy for Congress, FL; Updated

Massive Voter Fraud and I am ANGRY (please share)

Barack Obama Voter Fraud 2012

White House website deluged with secession petitions from 20  40 states

Texas Secession Petition Tops Goal

Was the 2012 Election Stolen?: There is shockingly ample evidence that Barack Obama did not legitimately win the…

Did voter fraud swing the election…Without a doubt?

Dennis Miller Reacts To Romney Losing Election, America Under Obama

Romney in Retrospect

@VoterFraud2012 Attended Mitt’s Final Rally. Were thousands of women & college students there. I guess they missed the memo. Just sayin…

@CampaignCarl Unexpected! Philly polling stations where Republicans kicked out had 90% turnout, 99% Obama… http://goo.gl/d9tF5

@imsure #VoterFraud Have you seen the recount in FL going in FAV OF @AllenWest RT @MikeWelborn Romney didn’t lose an Elect… http://tl.gd/jugasm

Florida Showing Massive Voter Fraud – As High as 158% Turnout

Voter Fraud: Obama Won 108% of Registered Voters in Ohio County

Voter Fraud in CaliforniaWisconsin

Colorado: More Votes than People

Voter Fraud in Philly: Recorded

Poll watcher says Romney votes were changed in PA  -  For names of electors/Electoral College 4 fraud investigation in PENNSYLVANIA: Elections 302 N Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 787-6458

A Black Veil of Mourning Hangs Over America – Updated

Obama Stole The Election With Massive Voter Fraud

Watch Salaried Obama Campaign Workers Actively Encourage Voter Fraud

Tens of thousands report voting problems in Battle Ground States

Have You Heard About ‘Spigot Cities’ That May Pump Votes to Obama?

More Electronic Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama: We Looked Into It and Here’s What a Vendor Told Us – Updated

Voter Fraud – Hacking Democracy

‘Cooling Out’ the Voters

A Victory for Republicans, Florida Wins Use of Federal Database to Purge Voters

How Romney Lost

Dead Dogs Voting For Obama?

Stealing Election 2012

Bias in new vote-counting system? National security concerns also raised

Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney… Satirical or…?

More and more people believe voter fraud rampant among Democrats. DEMAND NOW that Voter ID’s be set up by the: http://fb.me/V0BPtmfw

Checkout:  We have until December 17th for recounts, new balloting or a whole new election.  Demand an honest election with an honest outcome!!

Election Fraud Volunteers Neededhttp://teamnetworks.net/~teamnetw/index.php?do=%2Fblog%2F226%2Furgent-election-fraud-volunteers-needed-in-wi-oh-pa-va-fl%2F

and on Facebook

Obama Voter Fraud Volunteershttp://www.facebook.com/ObamaVoterFraudVolunteers

My Favorite Tweet of the Day: 

IMPOUND VOTING MACHINES TO CHECK FOR FRAUD CODE. HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION, A FAIR ONE. THROW OBAMA IN JAIL, NOT ABOVE THE LAW! CALL SENATORS

Monday, November 5, 2012

Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

Picking a U.S. President

Every four years, American voters head to the polls to elect a president and a vice president. Yet those votes are just part of a detailed system known as the Electoral College, which is used by the U.S. to determine its executive leaders; a system set up by the Founding Fathers of our nation.

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electoral votes divided among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to be elected.

The number of electoral votes each state receives ranges from 3 to 55 based on the number of Congressional seats the state holds, which is essentially linked to the population of the state. The District of Columbia gets 3 votes because the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution grants it the same number votes as the least populated state in the union. The territories of the U.S. like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, etc. get no Electoral College votes.

The Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election.

The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

The voting public’s ballots make up what is known as the “popular vote”, and in 48 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, the candidate receiving the most popular votes in a state will receive all of that state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes among candidates through their state’s system for ‘proportional allocation’ of votes.

In the rare event that no candidate gets the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the office, the House of Representatives elects the president from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state only gets one vote, so it could be a long process and full of contention among the state representatives to decide on that vote.  That has never happened in U.S. history. 

However, in the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.

Over the decades the discussion of doing away with the Electoral College has arisen often, but after studying the process, one sees that there is a reason the Founding Fathers put it in place. Little that our Founding Fathers put in place has needed to be altered or changed. Many feel that these scholarly men were inspired and guided by a higher power while creating Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any Electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

The Choice for 2012:

In some elections there hardly seems to be a difference between the two tickets and in others the two candidates and their party’s platforms could not be further apart. That is where we find ourselves this time, the election of 2012.  In recent years the two parties and their platforms have generally moved farther and farther apart.  America has become a ‘house’ divided which is at the heart of many of our problems.  And in the election of 2012 the top of the two tickets represent two completely different philosophies of government, leadership styles and experience.  Yet, had the Republicans chosen someone like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin or even Ron Paul the differences would be even greater and that point should appeal to many of the Independents!

2012 is perhaps the most important election in America’s history and definitely of our lifetimes because it is a defining election. 2008 was an election that will go into the history books because it proved America had moved beyond the question whether Americans would ever elect a president of color.  The race also included only the second women and first Republican woman ever to be on a National ticket.  But, 2012 will be the election that will decide whether America will continue down the entitlement path, becoming a Nanny State, where Americans choose Big Brother and less individual freedom and opportunity in order to guarantee themselves benefits and cultural equality, like Europe has over the past two decades, a socialistic democracy type of system over a return to American Exceptionalism that guarantees everyone an equal playing field but not governmental mandates and guarantees of welfare or equality and is based on the foundation and documents our Founding Fathers left this country.

So before you vote, if you have not already, make sure that you really know what you are voting for.

A vote for Barack Obama, a community organizer, is a vote for more government control in every aspect of our lives. Four more years of his administration will take us from the position of strength, though waning, on the world scene to one of weakness because his style of leadership will take you and your children… and grandchildren further down the road to greater debt owed to foreign powers who will then control us which will not lead us to a domestic recovery or prosperity. The job numbers we have now or worse will become the norm and so will our dependence on the government and in-turn the government’s control over us.

A vote for Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and a man with experience in turning things around, like the failing Utah Olympics into a financial success and win for America, will turn around our economy, put Americans back to work and as the our debt declines our position in the world will be revived as number one. He will also overturn ObamaCare and will replace it with real reform… something that will work and that we can afford as a nation.  He learned from Romneycare and believes in states rights and individual choice.

And another thing to consider is that we now know, thanks to a few patriotic insiders and a few reporters who are doing their job instead of promoting their political agenda, that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, VP Joe Biden and other leaders in the Obama Administration knew in advance that a terror attack was coming on 9.11.2012; They knew that Ambassador Stevens and others at the Libya Embassy/Consulate in Benghazi were asking for more help with security because they knew they could not defend themselves against an attack, and that the aforementioned leaders watched the terror attack in ‘real-time’ on a video from fed directly from the Consulate and did nothing. Instead they actually told teams and individuals who were in a place to help, to stand down while they watched our Ambassador and his team being murdered.

Can you really trust your life and the life of your children, grandchildren and the future of this country to a Commander in Chief who watches his Ambassador and other Americans being murdered and does nothing and then lies to their families and to you, to us… the American people? What else is he lying about? Think about it before casting your vote.

23 million people are out of work, our national debt has grown to a number that most of us never could have imagined  and our economy is worse under President Obama… and he has no new plan for the next four years; America cannot afford ObamaCare and there are hidden surprises in the Affordable Care Act that you won’t like… And then there is Benghazigate that Team Obama is doing their best to bury until after the election, as the Obama-Hillary foreign policy is unraveling.  Will you let them ‘cool out’ your vote?

"Democracy, as well as the survival of our Republic, demands an educated and informed electorate"

Know why you are voting for the candidate, party and issue you have chosen and the truth behind the issues…

Ask Marion~

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Whether Romney or Obama wins tomorrow… America will begin down a new path, which path is in the American voters’ hands.

h/t to NARA – the Electoral College

Related:

References

Read The Federalist Papers at: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html for the founders' views on the Electoral College:

  • Alexander Hamilton's design for the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68
  • James Madison's views on the republican form of government in Federalist No. 10

Search the writings of Thomas Jefferson for his views on the Presidency (especially, Letter to George Hay, August 17, 1823) at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

U.S. Presidential Libraries

'Cooling Out' the Voters

American Spectator (By Thomas Sowell on 10.30.12 @ 6:06AM):

On Benghazi, Obama's confidence men think Americans are an easy mark…

Confidence men know that their victim -- "the mark" as he has been called -- is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the mark."

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out -- but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton's own White House aides later called it "telling the truth slowly."

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called "old news," and the clever phrase now was that we should "move on."

It was a successful "cooling out" of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another "cooling out" process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year.

The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.

About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.

Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?

The White House knew the facts -- but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of "cooling out" the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the background.

The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty -- "cooling out" the voters -- the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.

As the Obama administration's video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on "the fog of war" that initially obscures many events. But there was no such "fog of war" in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.

They didn't know all the details -- and we may never know all the details -- but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.

From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a "war on terror" or the terrorists' war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders "workplace violence," instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism.

The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists' attack in Libya exposed that fraud -- and required another fraud to try to "cool out" the voters until after election day.

About the Author: 

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Related:

Obama Agonistes: The Fiction Cracks On Benghazi

Mother of State Dept. Official Killed in Benghazi: ‘I Believe Obama Murdered My Son’

Father of Another Benghazi Victim Demands Answers: My Son ‘Dialed 911 for Help and They Wouldn’t Help’

Father Of Slain SEAL Tyrone Woods Slams "Cowards" At White House

Father of Murdered Ex-SEAL Rips Obama for Libya Deception

Father of SEAL Slain in Benghazi Attack Demands Answers as Grisly Details Emerge

CLINT EASTWOOD Slams Obama on Benghazi Massacre: “There Should Have Been an Attempt” to Save the Men (Video)

Video: Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit In Benghazi W/ Bret Baier

Benghazi-gate: Should Congress Start Drafting Articles of Impeachment?

Catherine Herridge: ‘This is the Smoking Gun Warning’ of a Coming Attack in Benghazi …After Emails That Obama Administration Watched Attack and Murders in Real-Time… And Did Nothing!

Obama Agonistes: The Fiction Cracks On Benghazi

Presidential Depraved Indifference

Father of Another Benghazi Victim Demands Answers: My Son ‘Dialed 911 for Help and They Wouldn’t Help’

WOMEN’S GROUP Slams Obama For Abandoning SEALs in Benghazi

Benghazi Alert: How Can Americans Trust a Commander in Chief Like This… With Our Country… Our Lives… Our Children and Grandchildren? We Cannot!

House Armed Services Committee Chair to Obama: Your Libya Remarks Sound ‘Implausible’

‘The Stories Keep Changing’: President Stonewalls Morning Joe’s Libya Questions

Saxby Chambliss Slams White House for Libya Emails

Benghazi Cover-up Alert: New Information Details Description in Uncovered Emails Show ‘Obama Administration Knew’ About Terrorist Involvement ‘as the Attack Happened’

Heart Of Darkness – The Real Benghazi Coverup

Republicans Slam Obama Over Benghazi Emails

More than 20 MILLION (yes, MILLION) weapons “outside of the [Libyan] government’s control

Forbes: White House Watched Benghazi Attacked And Didn’t Respond

Amb. John Bolton ‘On the Record’

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld goes ‘On the Record’ on the new suspicions of an Obama administration cover-up in the Libyan US consulate attack

What does Mike Scheuer, former head of the Odama Bin Laden Issue Station think about how the White House has handled the Benghazi attack? Click to find out

Greta Van Susteren: Candy Crowley ‘Clumsy’ on Benghazi Debate Interjection

American Intelligence –> UPDATED INFO ON BENGHAZI ATTACK

Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack — Comprehensive investigative report

Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi

The Media is the Real Enemy

Bombshell: Obama Administration Withdrew 16 Member Special Forces Team From Libya One Month Before Attack

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “F _ck Off” And “Have A Good Life”

Glenn Beck: Suggesting Libya Embassy Attack Was Planned — American People Being Set Up!

Hillary Clinton, the Law of Karma, and Shattered Dreams

All Starting to Unravel for Obama… and Hillary

Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last…

Acts of War

Disgrace in Benghazi

REPORT: Obama administration was warned about attacks, did nothing – 9.14.12

We Can No Longer Trust a Beclowned American Media…

Day Late… Dollar Short… Spinner in Chief

U.S. Embassy Attacked: CNN Breaking News @ 14:06 EDST on 9/11, From Egypt… Then Libya, No Comments From Obama – Updated

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation

Share this information with as many people as you can in the next 24-hours (before they vote) about what really happened in Benghazi and about the cover-up that is going on…

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Benghazi Alert: How Can Americans Trust a Commander in Chief Like This… With Our Country… Our Lives… Our Children and Grandchildren? We Cannot!

Although many realized immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and that the Obama administration knew about the attacks on 9/11 within hours if not beforehand, but the day after the last presidential debate of 2012, and every day since, we have learned of emails and additional details that broke the news definitively that the Obama administration watched our Embassy being attacked and our Ambassador and 3 other Americans being murdered in real time, yet they told groups and people who could have helped to stand down.  We also now know definitively that President Obama and Hillary Clinton lied to the American people as well as to the the parents of those killed in Benghazi… and that presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was vilified by the Obama administration over his comments on the event, was right.

Video: Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit In Benghazi with Bret Baier

Video: Greta Van Susteren with UN Ambassador Bolton on Benghazi Emails

Video: Benghazi Gate Analzyed & Exposed by Brigitte Gabriel, Tom McInerney, Kirk Lippold, & Gary Bernsten

Video:  Leaks, Lies, Libya…Lack of Leadership

If there was any question that President Obama was an amateur, incompetent or had no problem lying to the American people this event answers those questions and doubts.  President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s entire foreign policy has unraveled before our eyes since 9/11/2012.  If it was not so close to an election, they should be impeached… recalled… fired. But with election of 2012 being less than two weeks away, these events should seal the deal… yet the mainstream media is still protecting the president.

Senator McCain says Obama’s Libya handling is either a ‘massive coverup’ or gross incompetence verifying that President Obama is The Amateur many have accused him of being or The Great Destroyer believed of him by others.  Either way America is in trouble and we cannot survive another four years with Barack Hussein Obama at the helm.

Wake-up America… we cannot have a Commander in Chief (or a secretary of state) who watches Americans being killed in real time and does nothing, and then lies about it over and over again.  If America does not elect Mitt Romney after these events, on top of everything else we know… and don’t know about this president, there aren’t words to describe what history will say about us! Team Obama is doing everything possible to keep Benghazigate from unraveling before the election and the lap dog media is juggling for positions to help him, but thanks to Fox News, insiders and Charles Woods, the father of murdered Tyrone Woods, the truth is out there for those paying attention.  Help get the word out.  America’s life as a free and great nation and your children and grandchildren’s freedoms depend on Romney-Ryan winning on November 6th, 2012!

Father Of Slain SEAL Tyrone Woods Slams "Cowards" At White House

House Armed Services Committee Chair to Obama: Your Libya Remarks Sound ‘Implausible’

‘The Stories Keep Changing’: President Stonewalls Morning Joe’s Libya Questions

Saxby Chambliss Slams White House for Libya Emails

Benghazi Cover-up Alert: New Information Details Description in Uncovered Emails Show ‘Obama Administration Knew’ About Terrorist Involvement ‘as the Attack Happened’

Father of Murdered Ex-SEAL Rips Obama for Libya Deception

Father of SEAL Slain in Benghazi Attack Demands Answers as Grisly Details Emerge

Heart Of Darkness – The Real Benghazi Coverup

Republicans Slam Obama Over Benghazi Emails

More than 20 MILLION (yes, MILLION) weapons “outside of the [Libyan] government’s control

Forbes: White House Watched Benghazi Attacked And Didn’t Respond

Amb. John Bolton ‘On the Record’

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld goes ‘On the Record’ on the new suspicions of an Obama administration cover-up in the Libyan US consulate attack

What does Mike Scheuer, former head of the Odama Bin Laden Issue Station think about how the White House has handled the Benghazi attack? Click to find out

Greta Van Susteren: Candy Crowley ‘Clumsy’ on Benghazi Debate Interjection

American Intelligence –> UPDATED INFO ON BENGHAZI ATTACK

Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack — Comprehensive investigative report

Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi

The Media is the Real Enemy

Bombshell: Obama Administration Withdrew 16 Member Special Forces Team From Libya One Month Before Attack

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “F _ck Off” And “Have A Good Life”

Glenn Beck: Suggesting Libya Embassy Attack Was Planned — American People Being Set Up!

Hillary Clinton, the Law of Karma, and Shattered Dreams

All Starting to Unravel for Obama… and Hillary

Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last…

Acts of War

Disgrace in Benghazi

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation

REPORT: Obama administration was warned about attacks, did nothing – 9.14.12

We Can No Longer Trust a Beclowned American Media…

Day Late… Dollar Short… Spinner in Chief

U.S. Embassy Attacked: CNN Breaking News @ 14:06 EDST on 9/11, From Egypt… Then Libya, No Comments From Obama – Updated

Friday, October 5, 2012

Flash Poll Immediately After First Presidential Debate Found Romney the Big Winner, Independents Turn on Obama

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Video: First Presidential Debate: Obama vs. Romney (Complete HD - Quality Audio)

A Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage Flash Poll conducted immediately after Wednesday's presidential debate finds that Mitt Romney won by a significant margin.

Asked who won the debate, 52 percent of respondents said Romney did, with 45 percent for Obama. Undecided/neither was 3 percent.

Pollster Matt Towery says "the results largely followed party lines, but independents broke in favor of Romney, moving the dial in his favor."

The poll sampled 373 likely voters nationwide, with a margin of error of 5 points.

CNN flash poll:  67% said Romney won, only 27 % said Obama won with 3% not sure.

Looks like they are leaning right… after Wednesday night

Anatomy Of An Ass Kicking

TPN: First things first, I usually only release these guys for electoral victories, but what the hey. Last night's Romney victory was so overwhelming, (and Obama's performance was likewise so underwhelming,) that I believe it is fitting to let fly the Baby Elephants.

I have two clips here for comparison on the analysis of last night's events. The first is from Michelle Malkin, who managed to catch some of the things that I missed in my euphoria last night. Suffice it to say that Willard Romney exceeded even the lofty expectations that came with Chris Christie's confident tossing of the proverbial gauntlet. What Mitt Romney did specifically was to take every single ridiculous canard ever uttered as a lefty talking point over the past three decades and use fact, reason, and plain English to use that canard as a weapon with which to bitch slap President Zero. Had John McCain showed half this amount of fight four years ago, he would be President today, defending himself against Hillary Clinton. How bad was the beat down? At one point during the evening's festivities, Little Barry pleaded with Jim Lehrer to change topics, the debate equivalent to declaring a TKO.

And now for something completely different, and by different I mean watching Chrissy Mathews come completely unglued in his, "objectivity," while describing his take on how the debate went. (I guess he didn't have that thrill going up his leg last night.) I will at this point in time point out that Jim Lehrer gave me an unexpected pleasant surprise with how he handled his moderating duties last night. The debate was not at all about Lehrer being the star, or about how slantingly he could phrase his questions. He merely stated a topic, gave it a gentle nudge to get the juices flowing, and then removed himself from the conversation. That was the first time in my memory watching the two candidates primarily having a substantive discussion on values, beliefs, philosophies, agendas, and policy positions in which they were able to speak to the issues and differences in any sort of a meaningful way. It was truly an argument in the arena of ideas. So how did Chrissy see it all?

When I was in High School, much longer ago than I certainly like to admit, my girlfriend was on the school's debate team. I went to one of her events, and two things immediately struck me. One, She was really quite a lot smarter than I was, and two, the rules of the debate seemed rather odd. Each team was given a week to prepare for the upcoming debate, but rather than assign differing sides to an issue, each team was allowed to choose which side they would take. They had to prepare rebuttals to both sides, not knowing which side the other team would take. I found it amusing that every team at almost every debate chose the same side to argue.

There are many people on the left and right who felt Barack Obama came in woefully under prepared for last night's debate. While that may be true, it is also true that Barack Obama is in the position of having to defend the worst Administration in America's 236 year history. He has no such choice as to which position of this debate he would like to argue. When you take away the smoke and mirrors, the spin, the lap dog media, and his stellar ability to read a speech from a teleprompter, this election, and mostly these debates will be about whether we should award another four years of America's future to Barack Obama.

In his first statement, Barack Obama told us that this election should not be about the past, but about the future. Them's not exactly fighting words, them's hiding words. In a nut shell, President Obama is walking a tightrope here. On the one hand he's happy to have the natural advantage of incumbency on his side in the upcoming election, and on the other hand, he would rather voters really not think too long or hard as to what kind of a job he's done during the previous four years. There's already been a lot of hand wringing on the left about why oh why Barack Obama did not bring up this point or that point, mostly pieces of the aforementioned ridiculousness concerning the supposed 47% gaffe, Bain Capital, war on women, etc. There is a reason for that. President Obama started trotting out the talking points early and often in the first ten minutes of the evening. He got what he thought were his best kill shots fired back at him in a manner that left visible marks on his person and psyche. After 20 minutes of that, five of his best punches having left its indelible mark on his squarely paddled backside, the rest of the evening became about Barack Obama's attempt to run out the clock and put an end to the misery of the left. Barack Obama's speech became noticeably slow, pretty much the same cadence one might find in the local police department drunk tank. He spoke long and slowly, and avoided anything even resembling a point, lest it be rolled up in stone and fired back at him as another candidacy ending salvo.

Mitt Romney on the other hand had another challenge. The Obama campaign has spent Hundreds of Millions of dollars in an effort to portray Mitt Romney as evil to his core, a man we should expect to see entering the debate sporting horns on his head and with a barbed tail protruding from under his suit coat. The only thing Romney needed to do in order to win was to walk out on stage without a red pitch fork and not eat a baby in some sort of ritualistic sacrifice. As no babies died in Denver last night, and Mitt Romney did not have any props which could be mistaken for a red pitchfork, everything else that happened was gravy. There was oh so much gravy. My personal favorite moment of the night was early on when Barack brought up my pet peeve of Democrat canards, those supposed oil subsidies, which as a matter of fact are nothing more than straight line expense deductions any business takes while preparing their income tax returns. (The oil industry happens to be the second most heavily taxed industry in our nation, with Tobacco being number one.) Mitt politely pointed out that in one year, Green Subsidies are 50 times greater than even the fictitious Oil Subsidies, and for a far smaller benefit I might add.

In the end it was nothing more than one small night which signaled that the race is not over yet. Mitt Romney is still in this race, and is probably ahead if looked at honestly. Special note to the Romney team, Barack Obama is not going to take this lying down. In the game of, "is the Republican Stupid, Senile, of Evil," there is only one choice that fits Mitt Romney. Expect the attacks to be stepped up immediately, and expect the next debate performance made by our President to look different. The good news is that the next one of these will be on foreign policy, just at a time when Obama's endeavors in that area have 25% of America's embassies set ablaze. It should be fun.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Lighten Up Eeyore, The Pollsters Don't Even Agree With Each Other

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

TPN: Sadly, this obsession over what has to be the most misunderstood science in all of American life has become a ritual, with a life all its own. So, now the depression is full bore, and even people on the Republican side are beginning to show signs of depression, despite all of our solid promises to ourselves and each other that this year, we would not fall for this lunacy, no matter what. If you really believe that the worst President in our Nation's history, the man who's policy of appeasement has seen a quarter of our embassies around the world set ablaze, the man who's domestic policies have shut down all domestic energy production on federal lands, the man who's economic policies have made him the first President since Herbert Hoover to see less Americans working after a full term in office than on the day he was sworn into office, will win the election by 8 to 10 points, then I happen to be in possession of the Brooklyn Bridge, and would be willing to sell.

What is most perplexing to me about the devotion to the polls is this. If the polls were at all accurate, they would be very close to delivering us the same numbers. If that were the case, nobody would be logging onto the Real Clear Politics website in order to see what the daily average of all the polls had to say about the daily average of all polls where every poll should be mirroring the daily average.

Consider this also, after every election cycle, all of the polls are ranked in accuracy, and surprisingly, none of the polls being quoted anywhere by anyone are ever close to the top of that list. Rasmussen and Zogby will typically rank 1 and 2, and neither will be discussed on the evening news. We'll discuss both of these companies later, and why they get closer than the other more famous members of the polling community.

What is a better predictor of election results is history, and in that spirit, Dick Morris has an analysis that is probably much more predictive than anything you'll see in the polls. In his article, Dick Morris combines an historical perspective with the polling results to give us what I believe to be one of the best predictive analyses available

So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).
• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)
• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48).

He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).


This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:
• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)
• Obama leads in Florida (48-46) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)
If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.
• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)
• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll
• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.
It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:
• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.
• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher
• The GOP field organization is better.
That’s the real state of play today.


When a pollster conducts his interviews, he does not contact only the number of people reported in the headline. They will usually contact 3 to 4 times that number of people. You will also not see the actual breakdown of how people responded in the headline. What you see, his finished product, will be a weighted average based on what the pollster feels will be the demographic distribution of who will ultimately vote, in other words, his guess.

Typically, when interviews are conducted, a voting model of demographic distribution exists before hand. A certain percentage of women, men, breakdowns by age, race, religion, party affiliation, etc. Then percentages of how each demographic would vote is the information gleaned from the polling interviews. For instance, pretty much all of the pollsters agree today that Barack Obama would win 85% of the democrats who voted, and Mitt Romney would likely garner 86% of the Republicans who voted. What is in dispute is how the voting demographic will break down. How many 18 to 21 year old kids this time? Four years ago, that demographic turned out huge for Barack Obama, now that 50% of them have remained unemployed for the entirety of Barack Obama's term in office, and they are 4 years older, will they turn out in the same force? Will today's crop of 18 to 21 year old voters vote in similar fashion as their counterparts from 4 years ago? Typically, this demographic has an abhorrent track record when it comes to voting.
What you have at the end of the day is this. Polls are only going to be as accurate as their predictions as to what the demographic make up of the actual voting sample turns out to be. What PPP, Marist, Quinipiac, USA Today, are telling us with their samples is that the voting make up this year will look exactly as the make up looked in 2008. In 2008, Goerge W. Bush was despised almost universally, albeit unjustly, and the Democrats in our country were hyped up as never before for their man Barack Obama. He was viewed as somewhat of a messianic figure during the height of the hopety change fervor that had gripped the nation's dopes. My fellow citizens were chanting, in a scene that came straight out of 1930's Germany. What these polls are telling us, is that America is still in that mood today.

Think about this for one moment. Compare the size of the crowds traveling to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Consider the difference in size of the Tea Party crowds to the faked inhabited tents of the Occupests. Twice since the convention, and once during it, Barack Obama was forced to change venues to something smaller due to a lack of attendance.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate’s partisan preferences.


First off, Rasmussen asks the question up front, do you plan on voting. This alone gives his poll an accuracy that the others lack. Registered voter polls include a bias towards the demographics who typically do not vote. Next, Rasmussen uses a different interview process to gain some understanding of what this year's model will actually resemble, without relying on data from 4 years ago. One of the things Rasmussen has found, through polling independent of the question of who will we be voting for, is that people who self identify as Republican is at an all time high. People who self identify as Democrat is at a near historic low. This does not exactly lead one to the conclusion that 2008's record turnout of every Democrat demographic feels that same enthusiasm today, and indeed feels it to an even greater degree.


In the case of Zogby this year, kudos for changing methodology to reflect changes in the level of technology available to citizens. My fear is that he does not yet have a handle of how to accurately utilize his new methodology. Zogby has been extremely quiet this election cycle, and now we all know why. Rather than conducting phone interviews, John Zogby and his company conducted on line interviews. I have seen far too many of these types of polls skewed purposefully, not by the polling companies, but by spammers with an agenda finding holes in the programming sufficient to deliver a result desired. the perfect examples of this were highlighted in 2008, when any online poll of the Republican Primary race showed Ron Paul with support ranging from 70% to 80% of any sample, while he consistently garnered only 2% of the actual vote. I am not saying that Zogby has not found a way to combat this, but his only poll to date this year seems to be somewhat of an outlier, even when compared to the others. I wish John Zogby the best in getting a handle on his new methodology, if successful, it should be a quantum leap in the art.

At this point during the election of 1980, Jimmy Carter supposedly had an 8 point lead over Ronald Reagan. I realize that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan, but neither is Barack Obama a Jimmy Carter. I am not one of those people who will jump up and down to swear that this is some nefarious plot on the part of all things liberal. I just believe the pollsters to be dead wrong, and that would not make the first time either. In 2004, NBC announced at about noon on election day that our 44th President would be John Kerry, based on their exit polls, which had the benefit of an accurate voting sample.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Related:

The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter

Romney Double Digit Lead?

‘Unskewed’ polls show nearly 8-point Romney lead

Race beginning to look a lot like 1980? What might Ronald Reagan’s victory path mean?

Calling All Concerned Americans to Stand-Up

Does Obama expect to lose? – Secret retirement plans

A Must Watch Before Voting…

Must Reads Before Election 2012