It's Not Over. Will Obama Go Quietly?

It's Not Over

By William L. Gensert
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.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/its_not_over.html#ixzz2Asbl8qXp

Facebook Censors Navy SEALs to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate

 

 

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 3rd 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 21st 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.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/mitts_royal_slam.html#ixzz2Aoc1tFpd

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

HRC
BY:


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.”