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

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Hamas Loves Obama

Hamas is thrilled with the outcome of the American election.  Imagine if Romney won and they had to deal with a president who might actually cancel his appearance on The View to intervene for our ally, Israel.   Hamas knows that Obama is the softest president we've ever had when it comes to dealing with threats to our people and our allies, (Benghazi Benghazi), so once they knew Obama had won, it was a go to attack Israel.

Mohamed Morsi, the president of Egypt, is also happy Obama won.  He knows that if Egypt steps into the conflict and calls for a cease fire by Hamas, his country will still get their yearly pay off and line his pockets with enough shekels to support twelve wives--not that Morsi has twelve wives like the original Mohammed. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be ecstatic with the Democratic victory.  In spite of the fact that a larger proportion of American Jews are Democrats, it is this party who exhibits the much more anti-Semitic rhetoric than the Republicans, and the most racist behavior while pointing fingers at conservatives.  But in addition, there seems to be nothing stopping Iran from continuing to enrich uranium and developing an anti-Israeli, anti-West bomb while Obama plays another round of golf.

Meanwhile, the smokescreen is getting thicker with misdirection from the real issues that face us today.  Specifically, why wasn't the consulate in Benghazi properly protected and when attacked, why didn't we send help to save our people?  Why wasn't Obama's orders to "do what is necessary" to help Chris Stevens and the others obeyed?  Why did Obama not know about Petraeus and his mistress until after the election?  And finally, what was Valerie Jarrett's involvement in all this?

Monday, November 5, 2012

The Not So Calm Before the Election

I almost can't believe that tomorrow is Election Day.   Obama is hoping to keep his job; Romney is hoping to take it and move America in the direction the President promised he would but didn't.  Then you have Joe Biden who is hoping to remain in a job that is way over his head.  He has been campaigning in Ohio at the headquarters of the Electrical Union in an effort to acquire all the electrical votes he can.  Just kidding.  He's actually asleep in his bowl of porridge.  And I ask myself, who would be the person I would want a heartbeat away from the presidency, Ryan or Biden?

Like many Americans, I've been following the election since Obama first began campaigning back in early '09.  It has been a marathon of ideas, mostly socialist ideas,  brought to us by a man whose resume could fit in a tweet.  Then Mitt Romney won the nomination by the GOP and now we have someone who brings years of business and managerial experience to the table.  Stack up those years of Romney success against a celebrity community organizer who, by being black, gave us the opportunity to assuage centuries of racial guilt, and we now have a photo-finish election tomorrow. Or do we?

Liberals still see Obama as a rock star president and that's good enough for them.  They feel good about having him at the helm, but the captain of our ship, America, is lost upon the ocean of decisions, and has no knowledge of the stars in the sky; only the stars in the movies.  And they, these super-wealthy one-percenters, get their egos fed by the Commander in Cheese.

For me, the decision is, much like Joe Biden, a no-brainer.  Do we want a lame duck president who has nothing to lose by forcing the country down the road of socialism, where government outgrows the private sector and the country is owned by China, or do we want actual change that we can believe in?

Monday, October 22, 2012

Post Debate Thoughts

I am happy to say that Bob Scheiffer was not Candy Crowley tonight and was a decent moderator.  Mitt didn't clearly win across the board, but he won on the economy.  he also was the "grown-up in the room," whereas Obama looked like the Grinch in the room.

When Obama sarcastically tried to school Mitt on the military, saying that we no longer are a military of bayonets and naval ships, it showed me how little our president knows about the military (even pronouncing the word "corps" as "corpse") because, in fact, the Marine Corps still uses bayonets as their last line of defense when out of ammo, and troop carriers bring them onto shore while softening the beach head with destroyer fire.  Obama knows less about the military and the economy than most people.  It's frightening that he's the "Commander in Chief."


Already the fact checkers are busy at work, and already the Obama folks are walking back his statement about ending sequestration, or cutting back on military spending.  Now that didn't take long.


But maybe some feel Obama won the debate regarding foreign policy--at least to some on the left--but Romney won on the economy and comes out the winner of these debates, overall.  Obama played 'small ball' while Mitt played 'large ball.'  It was a good strategy which I believe will win Mitt the election.  And it's happening in just two weeks--please be sure to vote.


My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       



The Final Debate

It's almost time for the third and final debate with Mitt and Hussein, Truth and Consequences.  I believe I know who the media is going to say won the debate, but I believe in spite of that, Mitt will win.  Bob Scheiffer will be the moderator, and if you know anything about Bob, you know that his photo is featured in the leftist handbook.  I imagine he'll do a Candy Crowley and try to sway the vote to Hussein.

Foreign policy is the subject and when it comes to foreign policy, Obama`s policies are clear:  show the world the USA is not special; do nothing real to support Israel, our only ally in the Middle East; bow as deeply to the Saudi king; allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons; continue to support foreign oil producing countries while refusing to drill for oil at home, in spite of the fact that the USA has more oil than Biden has gaffes.

I suspect that Obama will attack Romney for attacking him on Libya--Obama does a good impression of self-righteous indignation and he'll have to show it tonight.  According to Chris Wallace, Obama will be in attack mode and Mitt will play it closer to the vest.

We shall see.  Let the games begin, and let the media spin their bs analyses.


My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       



Sunday, October 21, 2012

What Romney Needs to do to Win the Debate

The third and final Presidential debate is tomorrow night.  I changed my work hours in order to be home to watch it because I believe this election will be the most important American presidential election we will have in our lifetimes.  

I have no doubt that Mitt Romney can president circles around Obama but due to the fact that he didn't need to bs his way through life, he is at a debating disadvantage to Barack.  He needs to change tactics to win.
Obama looking presidential or not

First of all, if Mitt gets yet another lib-loving moderator, he needs to challenge him or her when it becomes obvious that Obama is being helped.  Mitt needs to confront the moderator directly and point out the fact that the job of a moderator is not to define, avow, confirm, or give an opinion.  In other words, the moderator should shut up and moderate.  Candy Crowley is a great example of how not to be an unbiased moderator.  And when she finally walked back her bs statement about Libya, the American viewing public had already turned off their TVs and began playing with their iphones and other distracting electronic paraphernalia.  

Next, Mitt needs to have the guts to bring up Libya, the death of our Ambassador, Obama's failed foreign policies, and the economy, and stop defending himself on his lack of experience about anything Obama mentions.  Jeeze, Obama had zero foreign experience when he was elected, and his economic acumen was based on Marxist economics--the *OPM factor (*other people's money).  If Obama mentions Mitt's lack of specificity, Mitt needs to bring up Obama's lack of a plan altogether, and how Obama spoke about the death of Chris Stevens as "not optimal."  One can only wonder if Stevens and the other Americans were sacrificial lambs in order to keep the peace in Libya, and pretend al Qaeda is on the run.

Finally, if Obama uses his feigned indignant self-righteousness about Libya, and his  how dare Romney accuse him of lying, Mitt needs to hammer him until it becomes obvious, even to the staunchest liberal that something stinks in the White House, and it isn't his list of socialist, anti-American, anti-Semitic visitors.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Questions Questions

If Obama called it a terrorist attack, then why did Susan Rice call it a spontaneous demonstration?  And why did Candy Crowley back up Obama on this issue, when it wasn't her job and she wasn't factually correct?  Why do the Democrats continually get more speaking time than Republicans?

These are just a few questions I came away with after seeing the 2nd Presidential debate last night.  But I have even more questions.

Why didn't Mitt bother to ask Obama questions when he was unsure of the answers he would receive, especially from a liar?  Why didn't Mitt attack Obama on Solyndra, SunPower, and the many "green" companies that we taxpayers were forced to fund and watched them subsequently fail?  Why was Michelle Obama, sitting in the audience, allowed to applaud her husband when Crowley backed his lie regarding Libya and terrorism, and he asked Crowley to say it louder?  Why didn't the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood come up?  They're now visiting the White House and I worry that those flags they flew in Libya will one day be hoisted at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  We must stop them.


Finally, why do conservatives wave American flags and liberals fight the right to burn them?

My Brilliant Thoughts on the Debate

They did it my way
Candy Crowley of CNN (Certainly Not News) was the moderator of the Second Presidential Debate.  She insisted that she be allowed to be part of the follow up questions after the Romney and Obama teams had their own agreement that there would be no follow up questions allowed.  She sucked.

At first I thought Candy was doing a good job, until the point came up as to whether Obama called the Libyan terrorist attack a terrorist attack.  She jumped in to defend him and said that he did, and while that wasn't in her job description, it turned out that the reference Obama made in the Rose Garden was in reference to the 2001 attack on the same day, not the 2012 attack.  Obama lied, Stevens died.

When the black gentleman asked Obama to give him reasons to vote for him again now that he was out of work, Obama  hemmed and hawed and spoke about everything but the reason he should get the man's vote, and our President looked like Joe Biden in calculus class.

I didn't like Romney asking Obama direct questions--when you don't know the answer to the question you're asking, it usually isn't wise asking it in the first place.  Mitt gave him the opportunity to give the answer he wanted to give, not what Mitt wanted to hear.

I also didn't like Obama's boring talking points: fair share, millionaires and billionaires. Fair share is code and I have no idea what it means, when I try to analyze the term.  Who determines what a fair share is?  Obama?  And what makes it fair in the first place?  Where is it written what a fair share is?  I'm weary of the divisiveness over money--it feeds off of jealousy and a sense of entitlement.  

I think it's about time we have more control over these debates.  I'm not a control freak, but I don't like the disparity I constantly see, where the liberals always seem to get more talk time than conservatives, and the moderators seem like members of the Democratic re-election committee.  Why should they get to decide which questions can be posed and what the follow-up questions should be?  In spite of this, Fox News is still more watched than any of the leftist media.

My final thought is just how angry Obama looked, especially when Libya was mentioned.  I tweeted that Obama looked like he was having a bowel movement at that point in the debate and Romney won on that point.



Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Predebating Pontificating

The Great Debate in New York State:
In about six hours from now the 2nd Presidential Debate will begin.  Historically, it has been shown that when one candidate gains ground from the first debate, the second one makes less difference.  Obama was on tranquillizers when Mitt kicked his butt, but I'm confident he'll be on methamphetamine for this one.  In spite of that, I believe Mitt will win because he has a little thing called facts on his side, the most important of which is Obama's dismal record of non-achievement.  Still, Obama's record is less important to liberals than facts and liberals who decided to vote for a celebrity loser, will vote for this loser again.

The format of this debate is the town-hall meeting where regular everyday folks get to ask the candidates questions that will be circumvented by Obama and answered directly by Romney.  If Candy Crowley gets a chance, I believe she will lean toward the left and challenge Mitt more directly with follow-up questions than she will do with Obama.  I hope I'm wrong but I hit my quota of wrong this week and have a good chance of being correct.  If Candy is fair, then Obama will lose.

Anyway, I can imagine how hyped they are out on Lawn Guyland where the debate will begin soon.  

Libya and Hillary
Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton fell on the sword for Obama today stating that the buck stops with her regarding the royal screw-up with Libya that resulted in the death of Chris Stevens and three other Americans who died trying to defend him and the consulate.  

Stevens, in his diary, made it clear that he feared for his life.  There were two prior incidents, one in which resulted in the blowing up of the protective wall that made a hole so large that even Obama's ego could fit through it.  There were several requests made for greater security protection but these requests were denied.  Liberals then  tried to blame the GOP for making budget cuts on embassy security, but it was proven in sworn testimony that budget cuts had nothing to do with the horrible outcome that befell the American victims of Islamic terrorism.

When the 9-11 incident first occurred, Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations (you know who they are--the human rights people who are composed and controlled by the Islamic majority nations who believe Israel should be destroyed, but only because Jews live there), stated five times on various TV shows that it was a YouTube video that incited the "demonstration" that cause Muslims to go bugduck crazy and sodomize then kill Stevens.  Ever notice how sodomy and other sexually deviated thinking and behavior is the benchmark of Islamic violence?  

Of course the fact that this all happened on the anniversary of September 11, 2001, when the Islamic world came crashing into ours in Manhattan, is just a coincidence.  It was a video, Rice said.  A video that was made in July and viewed by no more than several hundred people worldwide.  How quickly the Obama administration points their fingers in another direction yelling "squirrel, squirrel."  


But the cold hard truth is that Obama is at the desk where the buck really does stop.  Hillary must have her own reasons for taking the fall for him, and I suspect this fall has something to do with 2016.  I think someone should tell her that if Obama wins a second term, he might not want to relinquish the throne that year and may try to circumvent the Constitution yet again.


My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       



Monday, October 8, 2012

The Mantle of Leadership

October 8, 2012, Lexington, Virginia, Virginia Military Institute.  Mitt Romney delivered his speech, "The Mantle of Leadership," which addressed foreign policy and our problems in the Middle East, focusing on the Libyan 9-11 attack on our American consulate.  The transcript of this speech follows:


"I particularly appreciate the introduction from my good friend and tireless campaign companion, Gov. Bob McDonnell. He is showing what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. Thank you also Congressman Goodlatte for joining us today. And particular thanks to Gen. Peay. I appreciate your invitation to be with you today at the Virginia Military Institute. It is a great privilege to be here at an Institution that has done so much for our nation, both in war and in peace.

For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation's defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI's sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm's way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall-the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe's rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, "The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it." Those words were true in his time-and they still echo in ours.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead-murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting "Death to America." These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events-and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East-a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

We saw all of this in Benghazi last month-but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, "The Ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya is sorry." They chanted "No to militias." They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, "We are not going to go from darkness to darkness."

This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people-men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers-all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.

We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today's crises from becoming tomorrow's conflicts.

Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.

This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country-it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership-a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President's policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.

I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out-no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America's great power to shape history-not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.

The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put "daylight" between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.

Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation's capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, "Are you with us, or are you with them?"-the American President was silent.

Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried-and failed-to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.

The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.
America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.

The President is fond of saying that "The tide of war is receding." And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today-with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates- it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East-friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, "We will not forget that you forgot about us."

It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them... no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them... and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America's capability to back up our words.

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region-and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions-not just words-that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security-the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.

I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.

And I will roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.

The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government-to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities... to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary... and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.

I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.

I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.

In Libya, I will support the Libyan people's efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.

In Egypt, I will use our influence-including clear conditions on our aid-to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.
In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran-rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war - and to potential attacks here at home - is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.

There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East-and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America's friends and allies in other parts of the world as well- in Europe, where Putin's Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are "pivoting" away from them ... in Asia and across the Pacific, where China's recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region ... and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: "Where does America stand?"

I know many Americans are asking a different question: "Why us?" I know many Americans are asking whether our country today-with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war-is still capable of leading.

I believe that if America does not lead, others will-others who do not share our interests and our values-and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America's security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America's great influence-wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively-to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better-not perfect, but better.

Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more-more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves-that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events.

Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: "He ... always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion." That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.

The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America's torch alone. But it is America's duty - and honor - to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America."

This speech may not have clinched the election--neither speeches nor debates generally have that ability--but I believe it made the case to conservatives who were uncertain about Mitt, that he is undoubtedly the best choice in this election.  

On Thursday Paul Ryan will debate Joe Biden.  It is crucial for Ryan to hit a home run, while Biden, (a.k.a. Village Idiot) has much lower expectations and a free pass by liberals to have a gaffefest.  But don't count Joe out--he gaffes with all his heart and liberals only care about emotions.

The left calls Mitt a liar because they have nothing else.  After hearing this speech, there seems to be little doubt that Mitt is a hundred times the leader Obama is--he has clarity of ideas and policies and cares less about what other nations think of us than that they respect us.  Under Obama, they've laughed at us and see how weak he is.

Friday, September 21, 2012

On the First Day of Jihad My Prophet Said to Me

I believe Obama thinks the American public is stupid, and to his credit, he's half right--liberals are stupid; not all of them, but the ones who plan to vote for an empty chair president yet again are as stupid as a bag of rocks.  Either the administration is lying, or clueless about what happened in Lybia, and the media continues to function as Obama's "yes men."  

Obama refuses to admit that what has happened in Libya is proof that everything he bragged about, such as having the ability, coming simply from his experience as a sort of Muslim maven, to get the Muslim world to love America.  This has turned out to be yet another zero in his presidential success scorecard--his only positive tick was killing Osama, but he took the credit from the SEALs and used GW's policies to get the sucka.



Wishing you a happy holiday, infidel
In Pakistan, a national holiday was declared today in order to protest the USA.  The Pakistanis called upon our government to pass anti-Islamic blasphemy laws (they're not so concerned about passing anti-Semitic, anti-Christian laws) that would severely punish anyone exercising their First Amendment rights and call Mohammed out on his actions.  They want Sharia in America and Obama seems to be listening.  Pakistan's Foreign Secretary, a woman named Khan (which is Pakistan's version of Jones), congratulated Obama and Hillary for denouncing the video that was seen by Obama and Hillary and seven other people, one of whom was a Muslim.  These smokescreen tactics have thus far been very successful distracting liberals from other issues like Islamic violence, killing our ambassador, burning our flag, the war in Afghanistan, our debt crisis and the economy tanking millions since I first started writing this paragraph. 

But the media still gets the tingles for Obama, laughs at his sarcastic jokes about Mitt Romney--a man with more experience and moral character than this Chicago thug will ever have--and spin lies about the Middle East.  This administration is quicker to condemn some moron for making a moronic video about Mohammad than it is to sharply condemn killing innocent people over the damn video.  Maybe it's because Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huda Abedin, is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood as are her mother and brother, and Obama himself is getting cozy with them--just look at some of his recent appointments and who some of his friends are.



My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       



Wednesday, August 22, 2012

When Obama Is Gone He Will Do What?

When President Obama is fired from his job and we conservatives hopes this wish becomes fact, we may wonder what he will do for work.  Obviously, under Romney and Ryan, there should be more job opportunities out there for Obama to explore, but just what do you think will garner his interest?

I believe Obama will look for work in the entertainment industry.  After all, we didn't really elect a politician, we elected a celebrity; a guy who can hang with other celebrities like George Clooney and Roseanne Barr.  He loves to appear on entertainment TV shows and answer tough questions like, "Mr. President, what is you favorite color?" or "If you had to choose one super power, what would that power be?"  These are not softball questions, these are butterball questions, but he answered them with all the seriousness of an entertainer, and the liberal crowd just ate it up, (sort of like how Chris Matthews would like to eat Obama up as the tingles shoot up his leg).

My guess as to what type of job Obama would enjoy doing in the aftermath of the calamity known as his term in office, would be a judge on America's Got Talent, but Not More Talent Than Any Other Nation With Talent.  The judges would score from zero to ten and all Obama would hand out to Americans would be fives or less.  After all, who knows better than an American President just how average America is than a guy named Hussein Obama?


My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       



Wisconsin brewery that dangled free beer for Trump's death just got its alcohol permit yanked, and the owner is sobbing into his progressive pint glass

Leftist owner of the Minocqua Brewing Co., Kirk Bangstad vows to fight 'tooth and nail' after the Department of Revenue ordered th...