It's Not Over. Will Obama Go Quietly?

It's Not Over

Does anyone believe that when Barack Obama loses on November 6, he will go quietly?
This election is shaping up to be a landslide loss for the president, and by the ever-present look of desperation on his face, he knows it. The nation should be preparing for how he might react when it happens -- there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered god.
In 2008, Americans wholeheartedly bought the Obama dream. It's never easy to let go of a dream, but today, people have let go of Obama the dream -- and on November 6, they will let go of Obama the man.
The debates served two purposes -- namely, showing the world that Mitt Romney was not the evil mastermind Obama and his crew had spent hundreds of millions of dollars portraying him to be while erasing the myth of Obama as invincible and inevitable.
For a man who is supposedly brilliant, it was devastating to see him perform like an uninformed moron in Denver. It can be said that he was unprepared, but whose fault was that? Preparation was too much of a "drag," and he wanted to see the Hoover Dam -- a particular draw for him, since it has always been a dream of Barack the god to build an Obama Dam while Americans forced to live in the economy he has built scream "God damn Obama."
The last two debates showed that the president did not understand what was going on. He thought he needed to be more aggressive, but all America saw was a rude and obnoxious man, with a dismal record of governance and no plan for the future. It used to be said that he is likable, but his condescension and constant belittling of Mitt Romney dispelled that notion.
He spent millions of dollars and much of the past year trying to define Mitt Romney and was outraged when his carefully concocted caricature didn't show up. Most people saw a man who was reasonable and presidential. A nation shell-shocked by four years of failed leadership saw the next president of the United States.
Barack thought he was a guaranteed victor in his re-election campaign. He thought the aura of his presence would so cow Romney into submission that when all was said and done, he would have the governor promising to vote for him as well.
Since his election, however, Obama has always been destined to lose -- America simply does not want what he is selling. But after his performance in the debates, many who had been inclined to perhaps give him a second chance took another look and didn't like what they saw: a nasty, petulant, thin-skinned man, uninformed and without a plan to move forward -- and all this on top of his disastrous record.
Yet he will not go away. In the best-case scenario, on November 7, Obama begins his march toward 2016. His entire life has been an exercise in running for president. Yet, paradoxically, when he attained the exalted position he so coveted, he acted as if it was a burden, and that we Americans did not deserve him -- in the end, only playing at being president while thoroughly enjoying the plane, the parties, and the perks.
He may never have been more than a part-time president, but to expect him to give up the job easily or gracefully is to fall prey to wishful thinking.
His monstrous ego will not allow any other course of action but to fight.
But, after his loss in two weeks, he will be forever destroyed as a viable option, at least electorally -- the cloak of invincibility and transcendent brilliance having succumbed to the reality of the man. He will become a mere mortal -- the veneer of likability stripped away by the truth of his pettiness and anger.
In short, he will never again be able to win the presidency at the ballot box.
And therein lies the danger. If Obama knows he can't win in 2016, he just might claim election fraud and attempt to stay. In a way, this could be what Attorney General Eric Holder's war on voter ID is all about -- establishing an argument for overturning supposedly fraudulent results. If his claim is validated by sycophantic media minions, it could gain traction among the electorate. It certainly will be believed by his small cadre of ardent supporters. After that, there is no telling what he might do -- or what his followers might do.
I would like to believe that Obama will exit gracefully. And I have a hard time accepting that he or his cohorts will foment rioting in the streets -- despite threats tweeted by twits on Twitter -- or that he will impose martial law. But, if I learned anything during decades in business, it is that proper preparation is paramount -- no one can know for sure what the future holds. The prudent prepare for all eventualities.
After all, we don't really know Barack Obama. His history is a chimera. The only information we have on the man is what he has told us in his two biographies and the slightly less than fpur years we have watched his disastrous reign of incompetence.
Just look at his recent actions. He has no problem ignoring the First Amendment and throwing a YouTube videographer in prison to sustain his pretend version of events surrounding the assassination of our ambassador in Benghazi.
He has no qualms falsely touting a little-watched video as the reason for Islamic unrest -- even to the point of causing riots at dozens of American embassies worldwide.
Those with open eyes know what this president is capable of.
Is this a man we can trust to accept the verdict of the electorate? I would like to believe yes, but all the evidence points to no.
It never occurred to Obama that he would not win a second term. He saw Mitt Romney as a mere businessman, and we know what Obama thinks of businessmen. He had dealt with many in the past -- they were greedy and easily converted into crony capitalists by government cash and preferential treatment.
Hubris is the most dangerous of emotions -- and Obama views all around him as extensions of himself. When he looks into the eyes of Americans, all he sees is his own reflection. He has surrounded himself with those who tell him only what he wants to hear. He lives in a bubble, but it is a bubble of his own creation, and because of that, he can't see it as a bubble. He sees it as reality.
What happens when the bubble bursts?
When reality ensues on November 7 -- who knows how he will react? Being a god is great as long as people believe, but once they do not, you become a mere mortal. Will Obama accept that?
Once the curtain was pulled back, the Wizard of Oz was forevermore just a man.
For Barack, the yellow brick road leads out of the White House. And, having spent the last half-decade studying the man, I'm not convinced that he will willingly follow that path. I want to believe he will. But I am not so sure.
Barack Obama will lose this election in a landslide, but that will almost certainly not be the end of it.
Voting is more important now than ever for those who wish to preserve the union -- the larger the landslide and the bigger his margin of loss, the harder it will be for Barack Obama to pretend the nation still wants him.

Facebook Censors Navy SEALs to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate

by AWR Hawkins

Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.

The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.
I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc -- the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.
Here's what Ward told me:

We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.
Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people -- all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.

Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook "feedback comment" inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was.

Ward said Facebook pulled the re-posted meme down within 7 or 8 hours and suspended the SOS account for 24 hours.
In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama.
How low can you go?

Mitt's Royal Slam

By J.R. Dunn

What's the explanation for Mitt Romney's unparalleled breakout? A few weeks ago, the Romney campaign was regarded as dead in the water. The polls (with the exception of Rasmussen) had the campaign uniformly down, giving Obama up to half a dozen points. Voter interest was phlegmatic at best. A combined Chicago-media offensive appeared to have put Romney on the ropes. The consensus was that Obama would cruise to another victory, one paralleling and perhaps even exceeding his triumph over John McCain four years ago.
Today, little more than an electoral-cycle heartbeat later, the situation is utterly reversed. The big mo belongs to Romney. The polls, excepting a few weird left-wing holdouts of the Reuters variety, show Romney with comfortable leads ranging from 2% to 5%. The swing states are trending in his direction. The expectations of the GOP are those of the 3^rd Army roaring into the Reich. As for Obama, he has displayed every sign of a man on the run -- desperation moves, incipient hysteria, vast and expensive efforts to magnify minor Romney gaffes, appeals to Big Bird and Gloria Allred. His expression in the debates was that of a man facing his karma, more haggard and haunted with each appearance. At least one person in the campaign knows full well that the game is up.
This remarkable turnaround is unmatched in recent American political history, and as such, it requires an explanation. Not many have been floated as of yet. The most popular so far holds that Anne and Tagg Romney, acting as Mitt's consiglieres, pushed aside most the campaign's professional political operatives in a successful effort to encourage "Mitt to be Mitt."
Everyone involved denies that anything of the sort occurred, and that may well be the truth. Occam's razor applies to politics as much as any other field, and the simplest and best explanation in this case is that no large-scale change occurred within the campaign or without -- that in fact, things are unfolding pretty much as they were planned to. That it's happening this way because it was meant to.
There is no conspiracy, and there was no mistake. What we're seeing is an example of straightforward campaign strategy in action. Romney has been underestimated as a politician all along. This is true to some extent of most politicians. The general view of politicians among political professionals, media, and academics is that they are simple folk who must be led by the hand and told what to say by trained and experienced pros, and in spare moments left in a corner with a shiny object to play with. This may be true in some cases (I recall a Jersey pol whom I encountered at a political meeting called to obtain support for his candidacy. His response to every question was to, without fail, turn and gaze at his campaign manager. He was elected, served three terms, and was considered quite a success by NJ standards), but it's not true of Romney. As a successful businessman in a tough, complex, and cutthroat field, Romney learned as much about strategy, planning, and the vagaries of human nature as it is possible for one mind to hold, and he has not forgotten a single comma of it.
Romney's stature as strategist was first revealed last spring, when he humiliated Rick Santorum on what should have been a day of triumph. On March 10, Santorum won Kansas overwhelmingly, gaining himself 33 delegates. Meanwhile, Romney had won in Wyoming, which gave him only 12 delegates. But Romney had sent his son Matt out to the Marianas, forgotten by all other candidates, including Santorum. Matt brought home a victory, which (along with a victory in the Virgin Islands), provided his father with another 22 delegates, ensuring that Romney actually outdid the "victorious" Santorum in overall gains. A few more lusterless debate performances, and Santorum was history.
After that, it was clear that the primary campaign was going to be a lot more interesting than many had foreseen. It was also clear that Romney was the man to watch -- a politician who overlooked nothing, considered everything, and never missed a trick.
A pattern had already begun to emerge in the early months of the primaries. During the "anyone but Romney" phase that the GOP was going through, a new figure on a white charger was offered every couple weeks as the great hope to take down Obama the Usurper. Almost as soon as they popped up, down again they went. Presidential boots proved slightly too large for Rick Perry. Michele Bachmann was felled by a frustrating tendency for her words to outrun her thoughts, and Herman Cain by his purported eye for the ladies.
The two members of this squadron with real potential of taking the nomination were Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Both were similar -- figures who appealed to the core conservatives of the GOP by means of images that were largely synthetic. Newt Gingrich was the Cincinnatus willing to leave his beloved historical studies to save the country, while Santorum was Ozzie Nelson. As is often case, these roles were a poor fit to the actual individuals.
That was the key element where Romney was concerned. As a businessman, he'd encountered plenty of figures who were all hat and no cattle, who talked a good game but were never around when it came time to toss some change into the kitty. It was in no way difficult to recognize many of the same traits in his GOP competition. So he treated them the same way he would have treated a hustler back in his investment days. He didn't fight them, didn't go blow for blow, didn't so much as answer them back to any real extent. He let them each go through their schtick, until their essential hollowness was inescapable to all but the most hardcore true believers. He then, in the next debate, presented once again the basic Mitt Romney as the natural opposition figure. Newt and Rick both faded.
What Romney found himself facing in the presidential contest was very much the same thing -- to a fault. Obama, the Illinois Redeemer, missionary from the Planet Zong, groveler to sheiks, reincarnation of FDR, and harbinger of the new age, was bogus enough to make Gingrich and Santorum look like avatars of authenticity. Romney's problem was that a large number of voters had bought into one facet or other of this multifaceted political entity back in 2008. The possibility existed that enough voters would remain entranced to sweep Obama into another term full of crazed spending and anti-constitutional mischief.
Obama was also a devotee of the permanent campaign. Though instituted by Bill Clinton, this political methodology could be said to have been perfected by Barack Obama himself, whose entire life has been one single lengthy campaign. In practice, the permanent campaign meant simply never to stand down, to remain in campaign mode at all times, to begin active campaigning as early as the close of the midterms, and essentially campaign, by one means of or another, every last week of the ensuing twenty-four months. Not a moment could be wasted, according to this interpretation. The permanent campaign was the new normal. Anyone who let so much as a week slip through his hands would inevitably lose.
The difficulty with this theory was that nobody had ever bothered to actually demonstrate its validity. It was taken as a given. Clinton won -- but against figures like Bob Dole, with the manly assistance of H. Ross Perot. Joke elections of that type certainly cannot be said to have been a fair test of the thesis.
Evidently, Romney does not accept the concept of the permanent campaign. He essentially gave the late summer months to Obama, to the despair of the GOP, sneers from the Dems, and bewilderment from the political pros. Much as he did during the primaries, Romney let Obama take center stage, well aware that he wouldn't accomplish anything with the time and opportunity he was being given, because he couldn't.
Obama capered. He took the messiah routine to the point of burlesque. He turned himself into a caricature of Mr. Hope and Change, not grasping the facts that it was no longer 2008 and that no one was looking for a savior anymore. His campaign, the national left, and the kept media carried out relentless attacks on Romney, none of which ever stuck because Romney never did anything to draw attention to them.
By the time the debates rolled around, Obama had used up all his ammo and had become one of those pop items nobody wants to see any more of -- last year's hit sitcom, a burnt-out singer, an actress on her fifth or sixth breakdown. So it goes with messiahs who hang on too long.
Romney may have been assisted by events, but luck favors the well-prepared. The Benghazi terrorist raid forced the Obama campaign to release the "47%" tape at least a month prematurely. They no doubt intended to use it during the last week of the campaign, when it would have the greatest effect, but were forced to throw it in as a desperation move to halt the bleeding over Libya. That it failed to do, along with proving a dud at ruining Romney's reputation. It's merely a footnote at this point. (Note that nobody -- not a soul, right, left, or center -- criticized either Obama or his party for the breach of privacy that footage represented. Nobody bothers any longer. It's now an accepted truth, like gravity, mosquitoes in summer, or darkness at night: coarseness, grubbiness, and illegality are what the Democrats do.)
After that, Obama had nothing left to throw. In the first debate, Romney took him apart, as he had long intended to do. From that point on, the Obama campaign was in free-fall.
Romney has realized something about the endless campaign that far more sophisticated and experienced figures had overlooked. Namely, everything that happens before the final two months is little more than preparation. It's the final stretch that counts. Why spend your money and waste energy and effort during the summer months, when nobody is paying attention? Obama was similar to a boxer who works himself to abject exhaustion during the run-up to a championship bout, only to flop over on his face on entering the ring. Romney, on the other hand, paced himself, prepared judicially and well, and remained fresh and ready to go the distance.
So he crushed Obama in the first debate; cruised through the second, despite a coordinated attempt to upset him (there is no criminal or civil penalty for the act carried out by Candy Crowley in cooperation with the Obama campaign -- so why would they hesitate? Anybody?); and maintained a cool and benign presidential mien in the third, a visage on which Obama was not able to leave so much as a mark. Before the entire country, Romney transformed Barack Obama into an importunate child, which is better than he deserves, and may well be enough.
Romney is now ahead in the only polls that actually count (5 pts. up on Gallup, 4 pts. on Rasmussen), leading among independents, tied or ahead in almost all the swing states, and making serious inroads in several voting blocs long since written off and belonging to the messiah -- women in particular.
Most of the political world of the early 21^st century has forgotten the basics -- the basics that Romney has never neglected, because he could not afford to. Romney treated the campaign the same as he would have treated a new business back in the '80s or '90s: you learn everything about the industry you wish to invest in from the ground up. You visit the factory floor, you talk to people at all levels, you understand all there is to know before you put in a dime. That's how he approached politics. By grasping the basic rules, the basic schedule, the basic rhythm, all of which have been set aside, to one extent or another, by most political technicians.
If he brings this off, if he is elected on November 6, Mitt Romney will stand as the most masterly political strategist of his epoch. He has not forgotten what others have not yet learned.

TEXAS VOWS TO ARREST U.N. ELECTION OBSERVERS...

Texas sparks international row with election observers

By Julian Pecquet

Texas authorities have threatened to arrest international election observers, prompting a furious response from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
“The threat of criminal sanctions against [international] observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), said in a statement. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

Lawmakers from the group of 56 European and Central Asian nations have been observing U.S. elections since 2002, without incident. Their presence has become a flashpoint this year, however, as Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud while Democrats counter that GOP-inspired voter ID laws aim to disenfranchise minority voters.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott further fueled the controversy on Tuesday when he sent a letter to the OSCE warning the organization that its representatives “are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place” and that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place's entrance.”
The letter goes on to accuse the group of having met with liberal organizations that oppose Voter ID laws. The OSCE put out an interim report last week saying that “recent state-level legislative initiatives to limit early voting and introduce stricter voter identification have become highly polarized.”
“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional,” Abbott wrote. “If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections. However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) also weighed in, tweeting “No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @Txsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue.”
In letters to Abbott and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose State Department invited the 44 election observers, Lenarčič reiterated that the group is only there to observe the elections.
“Our observers are required to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way,” Lenarčič said in a statement. “They are in the United States to observe these elections, not to interfere in them.”
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sought to tone down the controversy during her briefing Thursday. The department is eager to avoid giving the impression that the United States is unwilling to submit to the same scrutiny it demands of others when it comes to human and civil rights.
“Since the initial issue with Texas we've received a letter, both for Secretary Clinton and one for Texas authorities, from the OSCE assuring us and Texas authorities that the OSCE observers are committed to following all U.S. laws and regulations as they do in any country where they observe elections and they will do so as well in Texas,” Nuland said. "To my knowledge [Texas] is the only state that came forward and said 'please reassure us that you're going to follow our state electoral law.' And they have now been reassured."

U.N. Human Rights Council Calls for Boycott of U.S. Companies

Puh leeez, can we kick these UN socialists off our turf anytime soon?

TUSC

----------------------------------

U.N.'s war on Israel puts American economy in crosshairs

HRC

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff

The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc.
The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office. Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba.
The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.
In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”
The report attempts to instigate a campaign of boycott, divestment, sanctions, and legal action against a litany of international companies doing business in Israel. In addition to American companies, the U.N. targets include major European firms such as Veolia Environnement, Group 4 Security, the Dexia Group, the Volvo Group.
“The costs to companies and businesses of failing to respect international humanitarian law are considerable,” the report warns, “including damage to a company’s public image, impact on shareholder decisions and share price and could result in employees being criminally responsible for rights abuses.”
The report warns American employees of targeted companies that they face legal risks.
“Employees of companies can face investigation and prosecution for human rights violations committed irrespective of where the violation was committed.”
In addition to legal action against American employees of targeted companies, the Special Rapporteur “concludes that all companies that operate in or otherwise have dealings with Israeli settlements should be boycotted.” The companies should ”be prepared to accept any consequences—reputation, financial, or legal—of continuing operations.”
Should the companies continue doing business in Israel, the Human Rights Council “calls on civil society to actively pursue legal and political redress against non-complying business” and “to vigorously pursue initiatives to boycott, divest and sanction the businesses highlighted in this report” and “calls on the international community to consider requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice” to punish the businesses.
When the Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council in 2009, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pledged, “Working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

Democrat Boss Caught on Video Planning Vote Fraud...

Selwyn Duke

In a shocking display of lawlessness and contempt for our electoral system, a Democrat Party boss was caught on videotape planning vote fraud. Art Moore of WND.com reports on the story:
The son of Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. -- who serves as the field director for his father's campaign -- has been caught on video advising an undercover reporter how to fraudulently cast ballots in the name[s] of registered voters by forging utility bills and relying on the assistance of Democrat lawyers.
The investigation was conducted by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, of ACORN exposé fame.
The undercover reporter approached Moran's son, Patrick Moran, and claimed that he and a friend wanted to cast votes for Virginia residents. According to WND, their conversation went as follows:

Reporter: There are 100 people who don't vote. He's looking for two guys to help him...

Patrick Moran: Crank it out?

Reporter: Yes. He's got a van and he and me were going to go around. ...

Patrick Moran: Rally these people up and get them to the polls.

Reporter: Well, he was actually going to get in a van and vote for them.

Patrick Moran: Ohhhh

Reporter: I know, but --

Reporter: It's scary, but I'm not. ... I don't want to lose, and I'm frightened.

Patrick Moran: Yeah.

Moran also unwittingly explained why Democrats steadfastly oppose voter-ID laws: he told the reporter that such laws would make vote fraud more difficult. Nonetheless, as indicated earlier, he had advice on how to circumvent the system at the ready.
Now, note that Moran talks about this plotted vote fraud as if it's nothing unusual. This raises the question: how many similar incidents occur that we never even hear about?
Another case we did hear about came out of Bridgeport, Connecticut, where just a week and a half ago Mayor Bill Finch was caught on video joking (boasting?) about being able to steal an election.
While meeting with Democrat CT congressman Chris Murphy, who is running neck-and-neck for the US Senate against Republican Linda McMahon, Finch said that "even if it takes a couples of days to get the results, 'You can be guaranteed you're going to get the vote,'" writes The Weekly Standard. By the way, Finch and Murphy were comrades in their state senate for four years, and Finch has a history of stealing elections via Bridgeport ballots.
Then there's another kind of machine politics. There was a report yesterday that voters in Guilford County, North Carolina found that their Mitt Romney ballots automatically defaulted to Barack Obama at the Bur-Mil Park polling location. Writes MyFox8.com:

Sher Coromalis...says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama.

...Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers.

"It's not a conspiracy [sic] it's just a machine that needs to be corrected," Gilbert said.

...Marie Haydock, who also voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location, had the same problem.

Is it my imagination, or is this problem that arises every election one where machines just always happen to malfunction in favor of Democrats?
I've said for a long time that this election is going to be the dirtiest in US history, mainly because the left moves ever further down the rabbit hole of relativism, which begets an end-justifies-the-means mentality. Moreover, I truly believe that these liberal political operatives can steal enough votes in swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico to turn them in Obama's favor and thus steal the election. Remember, you don't need an October Surprise when you have a November 6 Surprise.
And, just imagine, the United Nations-affiliated election monitors dispatched to our shores will be looking for vote fraud on the part of conservative groups.
Conservatives had better wise up, load up, and realize that this is a war.

The Rats Are Leaving the Ship...

Daniel Joppich

Conan O'Brian showed his true colors by calling Romney "Mittler". This is a good sign for the Governor because whenever the opposition starts to compare you to Hitler or a Nazi you know you've turned the corner. In politics it's a jump the shark moment.
O'Brian's late night competition seems to be choosing to jump the ship.
Jay Leno made a disparaging joke about Obama Tuesday night on The Tonight Show. This has been a rarity for pretty much every comedian in the country over the last five years.

JAY LENO: One of President Obama's winning points last night was about how sanctions against Iran are crippling their economy. And believe me, if anyone knows how to cripple an economy it's President Obama.

Leno wasn't alone. Late night's other huge Obama Fanboy, David Letterman, on Late Night With David Letterman in a conversation with Rachel Madcow had this to say:

DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: Here's what upset me last night, this playing fast and loose with facts. And the President Obama cites the op-ed piece that Romney wrote about Detroit, "Let them go bankrupt, let them go bankrupt," and last night he brings it up again. "Oh, no, Governor, you said let them go bankrupt, blah blah blah, let them go bankrupt." And Mitt said, "No, no, check the thing, check the thing, check the thing."
Now, I don't care whether you're Republican or Democrat, you want your president to be telling the truth; you want the contender to be lying. And so what we found out today or soon thereafter that, in fact, the President Obama was not telling the truth about what was excerpted from that op-ed piece. I felt discouraged.
RACHEL MADDOW: Because the "Let Detroit go bankrupt" headline you feel like was inappropriate?
LETTERMAN: Well, the fact the President is invoking it and swearing that he was right and that Romney was wrong and I thought, well, he's the president of course he's right. Well, it turned out no, he was taking liberties with that.

"Not telling the truth"... "Taking liberties" = LYING, LYING. Say it Dave, " Obama was L-Y-I-N-G. "
I doubt if Dave is going to switch teams when he pulls that lever on November 6, but at least he's beginning to recognize the deception and he isn't afraid to bring it up. Unfortunately he's still trying to provide some layer of cover for his regular guest star though by not invoking the "L" word.
Quite possibly the wall around Obama is coming down. The Lefties in the media are subtly trying to distance themselves from BO. They want to be able to say, "Hey, look, I was tough on the guy."
I wonder how many more of Obama's media minions will be scurrying for the gangplanks like rats from a sinking ship.
Obama is making the rounds at NBC (and MTV but who cares). Let's see if Leno, Brian Williams or the crew at The Today Show spend as much time talking Benghazi as they do Michelle, his kids, dog and White House Beer. All the things undecided voters really want to know two weeks from the election.
Or will Williams get Obama to admit that he knew on day one what was really happening in Benghazi or that he was "taking liberties" during the debate when he stated that it was Congress that requested sequestration and that "it will not happen."
From the folks a Heritage:

Obama declared that "the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that the Congress has proposed." This was characterized as "mistaken" by Bob Woodward, who stood behind the account of the genesis of this problem in his book The Price of Politics, in which high-ranking Obama aides brought the entire concept to Reid and then sold it to congressional Republicans. Woodward reiterated later, "What the President said is not correct."
Obama next flatly stated, "It will not happen." This stunned the wonks and legislators listening, because-despite Press Secretary Jay Carney's protestations that this has been Obama's position all along-this is a huge departure from the President's repeated declaration that he would veto any solution that did not include massive new tax increases.

"Mistaken"..."Not telling the truth"... "Taking liberties" = LYING, LYING, LYING. Say it Bob, " Obama was L-Y-I-N-G. " Stop making excuses for the POTUS. He knew exactly what he was saying and it was nothing but a big fat lie.
In the meantime, as the lies and deceptions keep coming the rats continue to leave the ship.

Barack Obama is a Liar...

By Selwyn Duke

Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation. This is why, aside from the unwritten contract allowing for mutual prevarication, politicians are so reluctant to do it. And not just anyone is a liar. Legend has it that our first president said, "I cannot tell a lie," but, being only human, G.W. no doubt could and certainly did, at some point. A liar, however, is someone who lives and breathes the lie; someone who specializes in the art of artifice; someone to whom lying is his first recourse, not his last. Such a man is Barack Obama.
In four years, Obama has gone from "change you can believe in" to a man you simply cannot believe. And it's not just Benghazi-gate, although that's a good place to start. With the recently revealed emails showing that the White House was told a mere two hours after the attack that it was a terrorist act, no reasonable person can still conclude that the Obama administration was honest in its aftermath. And the claim that the violence was sparked by some anti-Islamic film wasn't just a lie - it was a liar's lie.
It was dumb.
It was obvious that it would eventually blow up in the administration's face and make Benghazi into the scandal it has now become. But such things are only obvious to the intellect; at issue here are instincts.
Of course, since the Obama administration had failed to provide requested security for our Libyan diplomats despite previous attacks on their consulate and the approach of 9/11's anniversary, the president had a vested political interest in suppressing the truth. This made the Benghazi-gate lie one of callousness and convenience, not malice. But then there is the matter of Hampton University in Virginia.
The speech Obama gave there on June 5, 2007 received a bit of attention recently before being dismissed as "old news." But perhaps nothing reveals the president's character better.
Appearing before a mostly black audience and speaking Ebonics-style (despite never having lived in a black community), Obama accused the federal government of showing cruel indifference to the primarily black victims of Hurricane Katrina. The evidence, he claimed, involved something called the Stafford Act, which requires a locality receiving federal disaster relief to provide 10 percent as much money as Washington does. And as Obama worked the crowd, he said:
When 9/11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act. ...And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, 'Look at this devastation; we don't expect you to come up with your own money. Here, here's the money to rebuild...because you're part of the American family.' What's happening down in New Orleans?! Where's your dollar?! Where's your Stafford Act money?! Makes no sense. ...Tells me that somehow the [black] people down in New Orleans they don't care about as much.
This is Racial Grievance 101, the main course offering of a community organizer (agitator?). And it's no small matter, as stoking the fires of racial and ethnic hatred has cost scores of millions of lives throughout history. Yet, isn't there something to be said about raising awareness of injustice? Well, now for the rest of the story.
Barely two weeks before Obama gave the Hampton U. speech, the US Senate had in fact waived the Stafford Act for New Orleans. Moreover, that city ended up receiving more aid than Florida and NYC combined. But that's not all. As Thomas Sowell wrote:
Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against - repeat, AGAINST - the legislation which included the waiver.
Absolutely mind boggling. Obama votes against the bill that includes the waiver designed to help people about whom he purports to care. Yet the bill passes despite his resistance. Obama nonetheless appears before a black audience not two weeks later and claims that the waiver for aid was never granted. Even more damnably, he clearly implies that this is due to white "racism."
Then there is the most ironic chapter in the Obama Annals of Artifice. It's common to dismiss those who question the president's origins as cranks and con men, but, as American Thinker pointed out, Obama was "the original birther."
This refers to the revelation in May of this year that Obama's former literary agency, Acton & Dystel, printed a promotional booklet in 1991 that touted Obama as having been "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." Note that this was a polished volume created at great expense by a professional outfit, and there is only one source from which its agents could have gotten the notion that Obama was born in Kenya: Obama himself.
Thus, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the president has lied about his birthplace - either when claiming more recently that he was born in Hawaii or, far more likely, when claiming in 1991 that he wasn't. And it's easy to understand why he would've claimed the latter. By the '90s, having exotic origins could truly enhance your cachet and hence your marketability. And this little twist on truth was small potatoes for a guy willing to disgorge lies designed to foment racial unrest.
This brings us to the presidential debates. It's fine to fact-check, to reveal that Obama really did lie about the decline in oil production on federal lands, tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, middle-class tax cuts, Egyptians' newfound love for America, and a Status of Forces agreement. But at some point it's a bit like trying to itemize the libations of a guy who has crashed both your cars, squanders the family funds on booze, staggers home in the wee hours, and is a continual embarrassment around the neighbors. You no longer need to prove that certain individual drinks were imbibed; it's painfully clear that the individual is a drinker.
While hard-core partisans will remain in denial on our drunk-on-power president, good people, who generally have a desire to be polite, should realize that politeness becomes vice when it obscures truth. And if we don't wish to descend into dishonesty ourselves - the intellectual variety - we need to acknowledge that the truth about Barack Obama is that he simply cannot tell it.

It just doesn't work.. (Cartoon)

Gov't intervention. It just doesn't work:

Payments on Interest to Exceed Defense Spending...

Payments on Interest to Exceed Defense Spending by $125 Billion

Daniel Halper

October 23, 2012 11:49 AM

In a decade, federal spending to pay for the interest on America's debt will exceed total spending on the defense budget by $125 billion, or 20 percent, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Budget Management. The projections are based on President Barack Obama's current budget plan.
Here's a chart from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee that shows 2022 national defense spending vs. net interest payments:

In 2022, under Obama's budget, national defense spending will be $618 billion per year, while net interest payments will be $743 billion.
In fact, the interest payments are likely to be even higher, since these assumptions are based on the historically low interest rates remaining the same (which is not likely over the course of the next decade). "If interest rates rise just one percentage point above baseline projections, the government would pay an additional $1 trillion in interest payments over ten years," the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee comments.
"President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal has two primary impacts on fiscal policy: a $1.8 trillion increase in new taxes (twice what the White House publicly suggests) and a $1.4 trillion increase in spending above already-massive growth projections," the committee explains. "This nets a paltry $400 billion in deficit reduction over ten years, or just one-tenth of the pledged $4 trillion. As a result, America’s gross debt under the President’s plan, as reported by his own Office of Management and Budget (OMB), will rapidly climb $25.4 trillion in 2022—$10.6 trillion above where it stood at the end of 2011. In other words, the President’s core budget claim – that he has a ‘balanced’ plan to reduce the deficit – is provably and outrageously false. He raises taxes to fuel a gigantic spending increase in Washington."

Overall, his budget would increase federal spending 58% - from a budget size of $3.6 trillion today to $5.9 trillion in 2022, and increase gross federal debt by 72 percent.

The result of all this debt is that interest payments on the debt are one of the fastest growing budget items. We will be borrowing money just to pay the interest on the money we’ve previously borrowed. By the year 2019, we will actually be paying more in annual interest payments than in annual defense spending. By the last year of the President’s budget, interest payments will exceed our nation’s entire defense budget by 19 percent.

The Wave That Breaks the Liberal Bubble...

By C. Edmund Wright

Can you feel it?
The wave, that is. I speak of one that will wash away far more than just a failed presidency. This wave will have the torque to rock the entire liberal bubble -- the political/media/crony bubble -- leaving it forever exposed. Ironically, those inside this bubble will be the last to know -- which is precisely why it will happen. Those who would rule over us, and insult us with outrage over Big Bird, academic debate-scoring, "binders" memes, and specious jobs statistics know nothing about us. This includes those inside the bubble who purport to represent our views.
But we know them well. For the record, "we" refers to the quarter of the country that never bought into the fraudulent vapor of Obama and who lost respect for anyone who did. Even post-election, when 70% plus of the nation was in this stupor, we knew it was Marxist voodoo that could not last.
It did not. Early in 2009, per Rasmussen, another 25% got over the phony high of Obama's election. Since then, Obama's been underwater on approval .
Millions more have joined this narrow majority in the past weeks. Debates have been the catalysts, but this epiphany has been building for much longer -- and now it's reached critical mass. There is now understanding of the shallowness of Obama and of liberalism. Everything said by the supposedly racist, mean-spirited conservatives has been validated.
Doggone it...I think they've been right all along.
We were, and not just about Obama. We've been right about the academia elites, the Jurassic media, the elitist conservative pundits, the establishment, the "obama foam" class, and Occupy and union thugs, too. This includes anybody who makes his living from government -- and the reporting thereof. It encompasses those who live inside the bubble, plus those who depend on them. These people are all intertwined, co-dependent, and out of step with America. Recent events have finally connected dots for a lot of people in ways they can no longer deny.
Consider a quick history:
Rush Limbaugh opened his show that day saying that "the new tone has come home to roost" and, seconds later, "I'm already on the field." Many scratched their heads, yet others knew exactly what he meant. The diluted conservatism of Bush, Karl Rove, and John McCain was destined to fail -- allowing a fresh start to take its place. This was explicitly Rush's point. Game on!
It mattered not that Bush and McCain couldn't stand each other; reaching across the aisle and the new tone were different names for the same perception failure. Thus, the end of Bush/McCain felt like termination from a bad job. Awful, and yet liberating. Many were "on the field" with Rush that day. The wave began.
Yes, Romney uses some McCain language -- and Rove is part of efforts to defeat Obama. Consider them collateral beneficiaries of a wave they don't understand.
The wave grew in February 2009, when Rick Santelli reintroduced the term "Tea Party" into our vernacular on CNBC -- and his rant went viral thanks to Matt Drudge and Limbaugh. The phrase "Tea Party" was everywhere.
Thus, when people connected in spring '09 at town hall meetings opposing ObamaCare, Tea Party groups organically sprang up. David Axelrod, who has never been part of any movement that he was not paid to dream up and fabricate, immediately projected his counterfeit style onto the Tea Party. He still doesn't get it.
In November 2009, Jon Corzine was decisively beaten by Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell won Virginia big. People were seeking refuge from Obama in the safety of Republican governors. In the bubble, they ignored these and bitterly clung to an oddball race in New York 23. Hey, no big deal -- you won two, but we won one. Nothing to see here. By the way, did we mention that Obama is personally popular?
The wave then crashed at Hyannis months later and washed the Ted Kennedy seat out of Democrat hands. Scott Brown is no Reagan, but his campaign was anti-ObamaCare and pro-Tea -- even as he avoided the term. The excuse from the bubble? Martha Coakley was a poor candidate. True, but poor libs win safe seats all the time. Those in the bubble missed the point and passed ObamaCare anyway.
They even promised to read it...if Nancy Pelosi would take her 200-pound gavel off it.
Then came 2010, which, like 1994, was fought ideologically. With Pelosi predicting victory, Democrats lost 69 seats in Congress, 700 state seats, lots of governors -- and damned near every dogcatcher. Pelosi lost her gavel, too.
Undeterred, the bubble-dwellers then put all their chips on the table in Wisconsin, where they had unions, a hack judge, and the sacrosanct teachers on their side. This was their slam-dunk. They were sure they could sink Scott Walker, and the world would be right again.
Uh-oh. Walker won the absurd recall easily. The bigger story is the damage done to public unions. The infantile behavior of so-called dedicated educators was seen nationwide. "Public servants," greedy? Who knew?
In the bubble, they dismissed this. They said the problem was simply their messaging and the evil Koch Brothers. Forget Brown, Christie, McDonnell, 69 seats, 700 legislators, lots of governors, and Walker (twice). Forget that the entire nation watched the Democrats flee the state to avoid a vote! Obama is still inevitable. Everyone (in the bubble) knows it.
They really believe this, and they really believe that the world revolves around them. For years, it did -- as most power, communication and information originated inside the bubble. Three networks, two wires, one cable, and three dailies ruled the bubble and the opinions of the world. We know the rest: along came Rush, Drudge, Fox, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck, and the conservative websites. Breitbart emerged and inspired millions to embrace tech toys to expose the "racial Marxism" of the Democrat-media complex. Thanks to the delightful capers of O'Keefe and Giles, we all know ACORN.
Liberal mischief was exposed. A union thug fakes racism at a Tea Party -- it goes viral. SEIU members confess to being paid to protest -- and it goes viral. A Democrat congressman insults a youngster -- it goes viral. Chris Matthews wets his pants, and it goes viral. Weiner...well, you know -- and it goes viral. The entire bubble is intellectually naked, and everyone sees the political porn without the networks, cable channels, or newspapers that once controlled access.
In the bubble, where politics is but a game, they miss the cumulative effect of all this. They have no sense of the undertow pulling on many.
Fast forward to last week. As Candy Crowley and the pundits are finding out, winning the optics of the moment is no longer enough. Now events are won and lost in the days following. It's not over 'til the fat lady goes viral. She went viral, and now Crowley, Obama, and the entire media coterie are being exposed on the web.
Those in the bubble never see these tectonic shifts. They were in denial after Drudge nearly brought down Bill Clinton. They stayed in denial after bloggers retired Dan Rather. Everyday reality brings down more newspapers and magazines, and the pioneer of cable is now only airport fare.
Hello? Anyone in the bubble spot a trend here?
No, and this includes some good guys. Limbaugh and Mark Levin hammered Charles Krauthammer and George Will last week on their groupthink. Even bubble conservatives speak of four-dollar gas and dead ambassadors as mere debate topics. How can they miss that four-buck gas, soaring food prices, and 11% unemployment are ruining lives? These are not points awarded because a guy sounds elegant.
Crowley's antics are a sample of incidents that cause light bulbs to go off for voters who may not know the issues but who do know that a president who has to be rescued by a B-list journalist is indeed an empty chair. They know that the B-list journalist is not worth listening to, either. This is the kind of event that can put the last four years into instant perspective for someone.
Different dots connect for different people. For some, it may be Obama snarking, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" after blaming the video for weeks. Add this to Big Bird, binders, and contraception for middle-aged students, and even unserious voters can tell that Obama is unserious.
For others, it may be the pipeline and gas prices. Or the cancer ad, the phony Harvard Cherokee, or fat union perks. Whatever the dots, they all connect those inside the liberal matrix of Obama, all Democrats, the media, unions, Occupy, and the pundits. Nothing they have said for years is actually true.
If such realizations have hit critical mass, we have a wave.
Gone will be Obama and the Democrat Senate. More than that, however, will be the exposition of the entire liberal myth. Obama has been the face of liberalism, and the bubble has been his support system. When this vapor gets blown away, the propagators will see their credibility blown away as well.
Even at this late date, many assign credence to polls with laughable 2008 turnout models. This includes Fox, Rasmussen, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as the liberal outlets. (Gallup excluded this week.) It will be fun to watch the horror, the denial, and then the spin after election day.
That's why the wave will be so satisfying. Oh, saving the country from four more years of Obama will be important, too, of course. But that will be challenging at the same time. Remember that John Boehner was a collateral beneficiary of the 2010 elections, and he still does not understand the movement that gave him the speaker's gavel. The same might be true for Romney and Paul Ryan. Rove will also get more credit, more airtime, and more wealth as a result. He may think he is driving the wave, but he is merely riding it. These winners are very likely to miss the message of this election, just as the liberals have misinterpreted every election since 2009. Inside the bubble, they always miss it.
All of this will present challenges and frustrations, of course, going forward. To paraphrase a sentiment of Levin's, we'll "deal with all of that later." And we will. In the meantime, enjoy the wave. It's coming. You can feel it, too. I know you can.