Barack's Navy

Here is a picture of the modern Navy under President Barack Hussein Obama:

Giants Beat Cardinals 9-0

Will play the Tigers in the World Series.

Also tonight's final debate.

Congratulations to the San Francisco Giants on their win over the St. Louis Cardinals.  A series well played.

Unfortunately the American People were subjected to the final Presidential Debate.  A debate that was supposed to be focused on foreign policy, but ended up a debate on the economy.

Here is the transcript.  And here are some memorable quotes:

ROMNEY:  With the Arab Spring, came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life, and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead, we've seen in nation after nation, a number of disturbing events. Of course we see in Syria, 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in -- in Libya, an attack apparently by, I think we know now, by terrorists of some kind against -- against our people there, four people dead.

Our hearts and -- and minds go out to them. Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by Al Qaeda type individuals. We have in -- in Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood president. And so what we're seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. Of course the greatest threat of all is Iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. And -- and we're going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on -- on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in Al Qaeda.

But we can't kill our way out of this mess. We're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the -- the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism, which is -- it's certainly not on the run.

OBAMA:  We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, Al Qaeda's core leadership has been decimated.

ROMNEY: Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.

OBAMA: You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

ROMNEY: ...attacking me as not talking about an agenda


Now who won the debate:  A Draw.  Obama used his old talking points:  bin Ladin, class warfare, and Bush.  Romney didn't take advantage of the ability to attack Obama on his weaknesses.  He was kind to him.

Who will win the World Series?  I have no idea but will bet on the San Francisco Giants.

Oh and one more thing:  Mr. President the Marines still use their Bayonets, the Army still uses horses and mules.  These animals can go places that a Jeep cannot.

Who will win on November 6th?  I give it to Romney/Ryan.  And I don't care if it is a landslide.

UC Irvine 2011-12 Report on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com






                                                    "One person's hate speech is another person's education"


The below report is the UC Irvine 2011-2012 Report on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion, a group set up by UC President Mark Yudof in response to numerous complaints of religious and ethnic harassment on UC campuses. Included in the report are paragraphs regarding complaints of anti-Semitism, the annual anti-Israel hate fest (note how the report characterizes it) and complaints against a newly established student group  called Ex-Muslims and Critics of Islam (ECI).


http://chancellor.uci.edu/campus_climate/pdf/UCI_Annual_Campus_Climate_Report_2012.pdf


"Each year the student organization sponsors a 4-day program that examines the 
life of the Palestinian people and the political dynamics of the region."

How about speakers who say, "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew." (Mohammed al Asi), or "Rupert Murdoch-straight up Zionist Jew." (Amir Abdel Malik Ali)? How about a cartoon caricature of Ariel Sharon on that Apartheid Wall in the style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer? How about Jewish students getting their cameras shoved in their faces? How about Jewish students who complained being advised to seek psychological therapy or being told that "one person's hate speech is another person's education"? I've been writing about this stuff for years. I wrote my concerns to that EEO office at UCI as well as that joke of a Cross Cultural Center which was so complimented in the report.

"These achievements are testaments to the dedication of our campus community to ensure that 
we continue to make a difference in our community, the state, the nation and the world. " 

"Ah wunnerful, ah wunnerful, ah"


Frankly, this report strikes me as a self-congratulatory white paper.

All Children Are Equal....Just Some Are More Equal Than Others

So it is for children in the State of Florida.  To make all equal they have to admit that some of their children are not as equal as others.

Asians are smarter than Whites.
Whites are smarter than Hispanics.
Hispanics are smarter than Blacks.
Blacks are so dumb they can never be smarter than any other group.

A new policy by Florida educators to set student goals in math and reading based on their race is an “ill-advised” plan that is destined to fail, education analysts told FoxNews.com.

By 2018, Florida’s Department of Education wants 90 percent of its Asian students to be reading at or above grade level, compared to 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanic pupils and 74 percent of African-American children. In math, state educational officials want that figure to be 92 percent for Asian students, or 18 percent higher than that of African-American students and 11 percent higher than their American Indian counterparts.

“Separate but equal is not,” said Kris Amundson of Education Sector, an independent education think tank based in Washington. “I understand that this is recognition that students are beginning at different places — and that’s honest — but I think it is, at best, ill-advised to set different learning standards for students based on the color of their skin.”

Amundson, a former chairwoman of the Fairfax County School Board in Virginia, said the plan “sends the wrong message” to children, adding that the lower standards for minorities closely reflects what President George W. Bush once dubbed the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

“It’s better to say 80 or 90 [percent], or whatever your number is, and then acknowledge that schools aren’t hitting targets because of certain populations,” she said. “That’s more honest than creating a system where everyone gets a trophy.”

The 24-page strategic plan, which was approved in October, also sets differing goals for students who are economically disadvantaged, those with disabilities and children who are still learning English. Florida Department of Education officials were unavailable for comment Monday, but Board of Education Chairman Gary Chartrand responded late Tuesday to insist that the goal is still to get all children "100 percent proficient."

"We have to acknowledge that there are different starting points among groups of students today," Chartrand said in a written statement. "We can only close the achievement gap in Florida if we are willing to have an honest conversation about what it will take to get all students to that level of success."

Board member Kathleen Shanahan has said the goals are needed to comply with terms of a waiver that Florida and 32 other states have within provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

According to state statistics, 69 percent of white students in Florida scored at or above grade level in reading during the 2011-2012 school year, compared to 53 percent of Hispanic students and 38 percent of their African-American classmates. Dr. Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Board Association, said the state’s plan has been designed in mind to shrink that sizable gap.

“The message could have been portrayed a little clearer, but as far as racism, I see nothing in wanting to raise test scores that would be racist,” he said. “You’re trying to raise all test scores, not just in one particular group.”

Blanton said his agency has no official stance on the new policy as of Monday, but said Florida School Board Association officials will discuss the matter at its meeting next month.

Neal McCluskey, an education analyst at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said Florida education officials are recognizing that some segments of students start at different levels than others. Doing otherwise would be illogical, he said. Still, he understands the justifiable concerns of an African-American parent upset that his or her child won’t get the “same push” as other students in the state.

“The root problem here is that it can’t deal with kids as individuals, it has to deal with them as groups,” McCluskey said. “This is again why we need to move to a system that is rooted in individual kids.”

The final result, he said, is that some children won’t get the same educational attention due to the color of their skin.

“If you’re an African-American or Hispanic student, the first message is: ‘I don’t have to do that well,’” he said. “There’s clearly a negative message being sent to kids based on what racial or ethnic groups they belong to.”

A better indicator of potential academic performance, McCluskey said, is perhaps income rather than race.

“We’re talking about unique, individual kids,” he said. “We have to get to a system that deals with students as individuals, not as members of groups, which means attaching funding to students themselves and letting the parents choose any school they want.”

Any time race is mentioned regarding education, people become rightfully sensitive and concerned, Andy Ford, president of the Florida Education Association, told FoxNews.com. But recognizing that not all students are on equal ground is a key part of the puzzle, he said.

“It’s really an opportunity gap that we’re looking at,” Ford said. ‘This is just a recognition of where kids are today. I would like to live in world where race and economic status do not matter, but we’re not there yet as a society.”

Another national education official, meanwhile, disagreed with the new policy, saying it was well-intentioned but missed the mark.

“The intent is probably honorable, but the execution is kind of insensitive, perhaps to the very groups they are trying to help,” said Daniel Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators. “Certainly the intent to get some groups to higher standards should remain, but it does show a degree of insensitivity.”

Domenech suggested that the state reconsider and analyze a system that rewards the year-to-year growth of each student.

“The expectations should be the same for all students,” he said. “Let’s not dilute that powerful objective.” Source

It is racist to separate children by the color of their skin.  What the state of Florida is telling both children and their parents is that if you are a certain race you are stupid and it can't be helped.  You will remain stupid no matter what you do.  That is why the state doesn't expect high results from your child in any test.

 It is a shame that the State of Florida actually believes this nonsense.  The state should test every child together and demand that every child do their best without a special exemption for their "race".  This is Moonbattery at its worse.  And perhaps a lawsuit in the making.

Pat Condell On The Religion Of Permanent Offense

A word to rioting Muslims 



We don't care if you're offended, and we never will. Get used to it.

Who Won The First Lady Debate?

Stolen From Hat Tip to Simply Jews

Once again Jimmy Kimmel has shown the voters to be brain dead idiots.  First it was critiquing the 2nd Presidential Debate BEFORE it happened.  And now it is their reaction to the First Lady Debate.  Only one thing, there is no First Lady Debates.

Be afraid.  They are allowed to vote!

The Final Betrayal!

If the reports are correct then President Barack Hussein Obama has finally been able to throw Israel under the bus and is going to allow Iran to acquire a Nuclear Weapon.  A weapon that Iran WILL use to destroy Israel entirely.

WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.

Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran.

There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a long history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it. In this case, American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort. The American understandings have been reached with senior Iranian officials who report to him, an administration official said.

Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites. Some American officials would like to limit the talks to Iran’s nuclear program, one official said, while Iran has indicated that it wants to broaden the agenda to include Syria, Bahrain and other issues that have bedeviled relations between Iran and the United States since the American hostage crisis in 1979.

“We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”

The question of how best to deal with Iran has political ramifications for Mr. Romney as well. While he has accused Mr. Obama of weakness, he has given few specifics about what he would do differently.

Moreover, the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to any level — a concession that experts say will probably figure in any deal on the nuclear program.

Beyond that, how Mr. Romney responds could signal how he would act if he becomes commander in chief. The danger of opposing such a diplomatic initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives.

“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.

Iran’s nuclear program “is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States,” Mr. Burns said, adding: “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?”

The administration, officials said, has begun an internal review at the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon to determine what the United States’ negotiating stance should be, and what it would put in any offer. One option under consideration is “more for more” — more restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities in return for more easing of sanctions.

Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”

“We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Mr. Oren said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”

Direct talks would also have implications for an existing series of negotiations involving a coalition of major powers, including the United States. These countries have imposed sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes but which Israel and many in the West believe is aimed at producing a weapon.

Dennis B. Ross, who oversaw Iran policy for the White House until early 2012, says one reason direct talks would make sense after the election is that the current major-power negotiations are bogged down in incremental efforts, which may not achieve a solution in time to prevent a military strike.

Mr. Ross said the United States could make Iran an “endgame proposal,” under which Tehran would be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear power industry. Such a deal would resolve, in one stroke, issues like Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

Within the administration, there is debate over just how much uranium the United States would allow Iran to enrich inside the country. Among those involved in the deliberations, an official said, are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of her deputies — William J. Burns and Wendy Sherman — and key White House officials, including the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and two of his lieutenants, Denis R. McDonough and Gary Samore.

Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran’s enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.

But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.” He repeated that in a speech at Virginia Military Institute this month.

For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament.

Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan.

But economic pressure may be forcing their hand. In June, when the major powers met in Moscow, American officials say that Iran was desperate to stave off a crippling European oil embargo. After that failed, these officials now say, Iranian officials delivered a message to their American counterparts that Tehran would be willing to sit down for one-on-one talks.

At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.

A senior American official said that the prospect of direct talks is why there has not been another meeting of the major-powers group on Iran.

In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.

Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production. It continues to make nuclear fuel and has refused to allow international inspectors into key sites. Any negotiation with Iran, American officials say, would have to include highly intrusive inspection regimes.

Source

For Obama it would be a "justification" of his Nobel Peace Prize and the winning move in the election.  For Iran it is an end to the sanctions without having to stop enriching uranium.  Obama is their perfect patsy.  And the people of Israel will not only be shoved under the bus, but irradiated to oblivion.

No wonder Obama didn't want to meet with Bibi Netanyahu.  And will Netanyahu go along with this betrayal or will he attack Iran on his own.

Either way, if true this just might give Obama the election.

A Well Trained Slave

Hat Tip to Simply Jews

My Grandkitties Kara and Sammy are working on this.:

What Romney Needs to Do in the Final Debate

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com






he last debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama will deal with foreign policy. Make no mistake, the moderator, Bob Schieffer, is much like Candy Crowley in that he tries to portray an image of fairness, but he is a liberal. The question is how  he try to manage the debate. My fear is that he will try to squeeze Libya in between numerous other foreign policy issues to dilute the effect.

When it comes to the Middle East, Obama is incredibly weak in terms of his record. No doubt he will stand up there and remind the audience that HE killed Osama bin Laden. Beyond that, he has little to show for his outreach to the Islamic world and support of the "Arab Spring". In his first campaign, Obama promised us that he would repair America's standing in the world-especially in the Middle East. That is now a joke. If he tries to present the Arab Spring as a budding democracy, Romney should be quick to bring him back to reality. The truth is that Obama has supported the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood as they spread their tentacles beyond Egypt. He has also distanced the US from Israel and done little to nothing to stop the advance of nuclear weaponry in Iran. It is hard to say that he has improved relations with the Islamic world when our embassies are under attack or flag-burning protests. In short, Obama's foreign policy is in a shambles. It can even be charged that he is trying to reduce America's influence in the world by design. He should also be asked why he is drastically reducing our armed forces in such a dangerous world.

Of course, China will come into the debate as it should, but here again is a chance for Romney to point out that Obama is letting China get away with (economic) murder against us.

But it is Libya where the President is most vulnerable. Romney needs to pounce on that and hit him hard. If Obama wants to insist that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech September 12, then it makes it even more egregious that for two weeks, his surrogates blamed it on a video protest that spun out of control. There was no protest in the first place. If Obama called it a terror attack one day later, why did Susan Rice tell all the talk shows 4 days after that that there was no sign of a pre-planned terrorist act?

And who sent her out there to spin that yarn?

Romney should also remind Obama that he (Obama) never answered the question from the man in Hempstead who wanted to know who refused the requests for enhanced security in Benghazi and why.

In addition, Romney might want to ask Obama why his Justice Department continues to keep that infamous film maker in prison for some chickensh** probation violation now that the video scenario has been discredited. Is that man really a "danger to society" as the judge said-or has he become a political prisoner to appease the Muslim world? It is a serious question.

This might sound like beating a dead horse to some, but to millions of viewers, they are still getting up to speed on Benghazi now that there has been so much controversy over Candy Crowley's coming to Obama's rescue. Keep in mind the main stream media has been downplaying the issue, but if it is front and center at the debate, people will see it in spite of the best efforts of the media.

I would also suggest that Romney bring up Operation Fast and Furious, which is another great scandal within this administration. He mentioned it in the last debate, but I got the impression that he is not entirely up to speed on it. It is within the realm of foreign policy because one of the biggest victims here was Mexico. Aside from everything else, it is a foreign policy debacle.

Everybody says that the economy and jobs are the biggest issues in this campaign. Maybe so, but the public does need to pay attention to what is happening around the world and how it affects us. Hopefully, Romney can advance that cause.

Death Panels are HERE

The Grouch at Right Truth is a practicing Emergency Room Doctor.  He is a man who doesn't give into hysterics, conspiracies, and tin foil craziness.  So when he speaks out against Obamacare I listen to him.  And you should too.  Having said that, I received this from his lovely wife Debbie of The Right Truth with a plea to pass it along.  That I am doing.

Death Panels are HERE

Today while working my shift in the emergency room, an old lady was brought in very sick and in fact near death. I did my usual workup and evaluation and attempted to administer life saving treatment. It was my plan to admit this woman to the hospital. I found out a little later that this same woman had been a patient here just slightly more than 2 weeks ago with a DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS. I was told that if this woman was admitted, the hospital would not be paid.

The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid. When they first started this nonsense they said this only applied to patients with the same diagnosis. Now they have "expanded" the rule to include re-admissions for any reason. So if you're in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg.......too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your leg.

A little later a man was brought in by ambulance, very sick, in pain, and near death. I did my usual evaluation and treatment, doing my best to ease pain and stabilize this man's illness. He needed to be admitted. To my chagrin I found out that he had been treated for the SAME problem at a DIFFERENT HOSPITAL about 10 days prior. If I admitted this man, our hospital would be paid nothing. I admitted the man.

My friends I am caught in a terrible position. I could have given treatment to both of these people and sent them out. There is no doubt that both of them would have died. Oh, I could also be sued for malpractice, but nobody cares about that. That's why we have insurance, right?

My other choice is to admit the person, knowing full well that the hospital will have to absorb the cost of care without hope of remuneration.

This is the climate we as healthcare providers find ourselves in today. How many small and struggling hospitals will survive under such ludicrous payment schemes? Indeed many facilities will close their doors. Many doctors will retire early or simply go do something else. As more and more are added to the Obamacare rolls, there will be less and less access. People will get sicker and yes, people will die because of it.

I had a sick and sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach today after both of these incidents. We have a good hospital. Our nurses, technicians, and support staff work very hard and they deserve to be paid for their efforts. I am not so worried about myself as I am near retirement, but I worry for all the younger folks in the healthcare business and I worry about our seniors who are in the long run going to be sacrificed as the government implements cost cutting shenanigans to cover up their broken promise made way back in 1964.

Folks, this is a nightmare!

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said that we had to pass the bill to know what was in the bill?  We now know what is in the bill.  AND WE DON'T LIKE IT!

If you will, please pass this along.  Either through Facebook, Twitter and/or on your own blog.  And remember to vote on Nov. 6th to remove the problem that caused this disaster:  President Barack Hussein Obama.

Cats Turn Against Obama

Stolen From Hat Tip to Israel Matzav

Obama is having a real problem.  He has lost the cat vote.  He lost the dog vote when he admitted to eating dog.

Jimmy Kimmel: Who Won "Last Night's" Debate

File this one under “shake your head and sigh.”

ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel sent a staffer out on the streets of Hollywood on Tuesday to ask people who won “last night’s” debate — four hours before it even took place.

“God, um. I would go with Obama,” one young man said. “I’m going to say he was stronger this time around in his choice of answering questions.”

Another man also said Obama won, calling him “more alert this time and not so slacking like he did before.”
“Did you watch the whole thing?” the staffer asked.

“Oh yeah, oh yeah,” the man said.

Watch the full clip below, via ABC:



And remember they vote!

Everybody is Talking About Candy Crowley

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com





This is why I am a humble blogger instead of being a talking head on TV.

To tell the truth, I didn't put much importance on Crowley inserting herself into the Libya discussion last night, but she is the talk of the airwaves today. Prior to the debate, both sides had concerns about her, and I guess she justified at least the fears of the Romney camp.

At issue was whether President Obama called the Benghazi incident a terror attack during his September 12 Rose Garden remarks. Last night, he said he did. Romney took issue with that. As I previously stated, Obama made a reference to terror attacks, but it was not really clear if he was talking about Benghazi or terror attacks in general. At any rate, Crowley jumped in and supported Obama-then added that Romney was correct in that the "protest" story was out there for two weeks. Romney supporters are charging that Crowley saved Obama from Romney's points on the Libya issue. You can read the transcript of the exchange as well as the full debate transcript here. In addition, you can see Crowley's explanation post-debate here.

At any rate, there is a silver lining here. This will get more people talking about Libya and the administration's responses. In the next debate, foreign policy is the topic, and Libya figures to get a lot of air time as well as the so-called "Arab Spring" and Obama's handling of Israel. That is unless, of course, moderator Bob Schieffer tries to keep those items short and move on to other subjects like trade with China and the cost of French perfume. I suspect that after Crowley, all eyes will be watching Schieffer's moderating.

There is another point that should be clarified either now or during the next debate: If President Obama wants to stake out the position that he did indeed call the Benghazi assault a "terror attack" on September 12, then doesn't that make Ambassador Susan Rice's (and others) statements days later about a "protest over a video that got out of control" even more egregious?

"Uhhhhhh..............yeaaaaaah."

This is a great opportunity here. Obama has placed himself in a box. It behooves Romney to nail him on this in the next debate.

AWFUL. CNN Moderator Jumps In To Defend Obama During Presidential Debate

Media Bias at the worst.  Candy Crawly of CNN pulling for Barack Hussein Obama and covering for him on a question about Benghazi.

Awful. At the Hofstra Presidential Debate Candy Crowley jumped in to defend Barck Obama. Crowley said Obama called the Benghazi massacre a terror attack in Rose Garden the day after the slaughter.

He didn’t.

And five days later, despite having video of the massacre, the Obama Administration pushed the lie that it was a protest gone bad.

Not just Media Bias, but the fact that CNN is one of the official propaganda mills for the Obama Regime.

This is the original Rose Garden video:



Any questions?

And of course the opinion of the Frank Luntz Focus Group.







The people are speaking, speaking loudly!

Wednesday's Hero: Dan Carbonneau

This Post Was Suggested By Kathi



Dan Carbonneau



A grenade explosion might have put an end to Dan Carbonneau's effort to serve his country, but he hasn't let it sway his determination to serve others. He found a new mission: training assistance dogs.

The former Marine from Excelsior spends 20 hours a week at Can Do Canines in New Hope, teaching dogs to do everything from punch elevator call buttons to open kitchen drawers.

"The dogs help people with disabilities," he said. "It's nice to know that you're doing something positive for the community."

You Can Read More About Carbonneau here

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives just so others may get to enjoy freedom. For that I am proud to call them Hero.

Those Who Say That We're In A Time When There Are No Heroes, They Just Don't Know Where To Look.

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.

Obama Administration Denies Mother Answers About Her Son’s Murder

Stolen From Hat Tip to Observations

Why is my son dead?

That is all Pat Smith wants to know. Her son, computer specialist Sean Smith, was one of the four Americans killed on September 11th in the terror attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. A month after she buried her son, a month after everyone all the way up to the president of the United States promised her answers, she says she is still awaiting those answers.

“That's a funny subject,” Mrs. Smith said. “I begged them to tell me what was -- what happened. I said I want to know all the details, all of the details no matter what it is, and I'll make up my own mind on it. And every one of them, all the big shots over there told me that -- they promised me, they promised me that they would tell me what happened. As soon as they figure it out.”

“No one, not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people,” she said. “Hillary promised me. Joe Biden -- Joe Biden -- they all told me that -- they promised me. And I told them please, tell me what happened. Just tell me what happened.”

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a made-in-Washington disaster, a result of naive foreign policy consisting of apology and appeasement – projecting weakness surpassing even that of Jimmy Carter.

Every other world leader defends and promotes his country, but Barack Obama agrees with our critics and apologizes for America. His pusillanimous posture sent a message to our enemies, and they have acted on our well-advertised weakness.

And now in the face of that inglorious policy failure in Libya, Mr. Obama has retreated to doing what he does best: passing the blame. “We didn’t do that; it was that video.”

Suggesting that an anti-Muslim video that hardly anyone on Earth had seen was responsible for that attack was ridiculous on its face, and was almost immediately discredited. Still, the administration continued to blame the video for about two weeks, before finally admitting what everybody else already knew: it was a planned terrorist attack. It then shifted blame to intelligence agencies for providing the administration bad information.

But, as time passed, the tawdry details emerged, showing that the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stubbornly refused to provide additional security forces for Libya as repeatedly requested.

The leader of the military security team in Tripoli, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, told various TV outlets that he and other embassy officials unsuccessfully attempted to extend his team’s tour of duty in Libya because of mounting security concerns. “The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there,” Colonel Wood said. “Diplomatic security remained weak.”

A former security officer, Eric Nordstrom, said he was told in a phone call in July that the deployment of a 16-member American military site security team based in Tripoli could not be prolonged, according to a report by The New York Times. Although the Africa Command that oversaw the unit was willing to extend the deployment, the State Department said “no.”

Mr. Nordstrom told a Congressional committee recently he tried to improve security by asking for 12 agents, only to be told by a State Department official that he was asking for the “sun, moon and the stars.” “It was abundantly clear: we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Mr. Nordstrom said. “And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?” We now know the answer.

Although he is still a State Department employee, Mr. Nordstrom expressed strong frustration in trying to work with the Department. “It’s not the hardships,” he said. “It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.” And he made this revealing comment: “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

There is no way the administration can fix this colossal, deadly screw-up, but it could at least keep its word by honoring Mrs. Smith’s loss and help give her peace in her hour of grief.

Mr. Obama should drop the cover-up and come clean with the American people. That means admitting the dramatic failure of his foreign policy, and admitting to playing petty politics to distract the public. However, accepting responsibility isn’t in the Obama Playbook, especially this close to the election.

 

Obama October Surprise in the Works?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip to Miggie




World Net Daily has posted an interesting article by a foreign intelligence source that claims that the Obama administration is negotiating with Iran to arrange a temporary nuclear halt by the Islamic regime to be announced before the November 6 election.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/october-surprise-obama-secret-iran-deal-cut/

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but I think it is worthwhile to post it as it stands in case it actually happens. You can't put anything beyond this administration.

Latma TV: That Is Exactly What They Want

Plus More

Flock Builder wisely explains why we mustn't fall into a trap,a job candidate with unique tastes in music,  Story Time about a zero that felt very important (Tell me who they are talking about with this:  Zero is zero, Justa flatulent circle filled with hot air.).

Have a great weekend!

Bill Whittle Afterburner: Old School

Stolen From Patriot's Corner

Hear about Bill Whittle's trip to Oberlin College in Ohio. Oberlin is among the most liberal colleges in America. While Bill Whittle is grateful for the hospitality of his hosts, he was shocked by the campus intolerance. especially the limitations on freedom of speech. Hear what Whittle saw, and why he thinks liberalism is a regressive rather than a progressive ideology.




My advise to Mr. Whittle is the next time he visits a Liberal College or University wear a Yarmulke and watch the reactions and listen to the pure hate speech that comes from the mouths of our next generation of "leaders".  Is it any wonder that I fear that this generation will build camps and gas chambers.

Survey Says?

Stolen From Hat Tip to Israel Matzav

Romney up by 7 in Florida.

That is according to a new poll out today by the Tampa Bay Times, Bay News 9 and the Miami Herald.

Barack Obama's lackluster debate performance last week has dramatically altered the presidential race in Florida, with Mitt Romney opening up a decisive 7 percentage point lead, according to a new Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald poll.

The survey conducted this week found 51 percent of likely Florida voters supporting Romney, 44 percent backing Obama and 4 percent undecided. That's a major shift from a month ago when the same poll showed Obama leading 48 percent to 47 percent — and a direct result of what Obama himself called a "bad night" at the first debate.

The debate prompted 5 percent of previously undecided voters and 2 percent of Obama backers to move to Romney. Another 2 percent of Obama supporters said they are now undecided because of the debate.

"There's no question in my mind that debate made people stand up and pay attention, and it really wiped away any questions people had about Romney, whether they were undecided or soft for Obama," said Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the poll for the Times and its media partners.

Across the board, from who is better suited to improve the economy, to who will protect Medicare, to looking out for the middle-class, to handling foreign policy, likely Florida voters now favor the former Massachusetts governor over the president. "It's a very big shift since the debate, and where the shifts are taking place are very, very interesting because they are the types of shifts you see in Florida when something starts to break one way or another," said Coker, likening it to when Ronald Reagan shot past Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Take Tampa Bay, the battleground region that invariably mirrors statewide results. A month ago, Obama had a 4 percentage point lead in Tampa Bay. This week, Romney led by 8 percent, 52 to 44. In Central Florida, Romney now leads by 6 points.

Likewise, Obama's lead among likely women voters in Florida fell from 15 percentage points last month to just 2 points, 49 percent for Obama and 47 percent for Romney.

Obama's once 11 point lead among likely independent voters had cascaded into a 13 point lead for Romney this week, 52 percent to 39 percent.

The poll found little change among Florida youngest voters, 18-34, or oldest voters, 65 and up. But those ages 35 to 64, who had been evenly divided a month ago, moved dramatically to the Republican nominee. Romney now has a nine point lead among voters age 35-49 and a 15 point lead among those between 50 and 64.

Especially ominous were the numbers for Hispanic voters, a demographic where the Obama campaign is banking on an advantage of at least 15 percentage points. The poll showed 44 percent of likely Hispanic voters favoring Obama and 46 for Romney, though the margin of error is higher with that smaller group of voters.

"We ran away from other countries in search of a more traditional United States," said Coral Gables resident Mary Gonzalez, who immigrated from Venezuela. "I think with the current president, the United States moves to (the left). And with Romney, I believe he can return the United States to its traditional course."

The bottom line? Obama appears to be in serious trouble in America's biggest battleground state. He has two debates and 25 days to turn it around, but the poll points to a race that had been close and stable for months shifting significantly toward the Republican nominee.

"You cant say it's over, but if nothing changes — no major gaffes, no big stories that come out of nowhere, relatively equal debate performances where nobody really outdoes the other — I think Florida is going to fall into the Romney column," Coker said. "I think once voters fall off of Obama it's going to be harder for Obama to bring them em back."

The telephone survey of 800 registered Florida voters — all likely to vote in the November election — was conducted Oct. 8-10 for the Tampa Bay Times, Bay News 9, Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald and Central Florida News 13. The poll, which included respondents using land-lines and cell phones, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Not all the polling news was bleak for Obama Thursday. An Oct. 7-9 NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist Florida poll found significantly different results, with Obama leading Romney among likely Florida voters 48 percent to 47 percent, and well ahead of Romney among women. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

A couple differences between the Marist poll and Mason-Dixon: Mason-Dixon, which has been polling in Florida for 28 years, uses a survey sample based on people's voter actual registration to match the electorate in Florida, while Marist uses a sample based on whether people say they consider themselves a Republican, Democrat or independent. About 20 percent of the likely voters in the Marist poll were Hispanic, while 13 percent were Hispanic in the Mason-Dixon poll, more in line with the Florida voting patterns. Marist had Obama leading among Hispanics 47 percent to 45 percent.

The average of recent Florida polls compiled by RealClearPolitics, without the latest Times poll included, shows a dead even race, 47.5 percent for Romney and 47.5 percent for Obama.

The Times poll "is just not rooted in reality," senior Obama adviser David Plouffe said Thursday. "We got 57 percent of the Latino vote, according to exit (polls) last time. We think we'll probably push 60 or above this time."

Plouffe told the Times the Obama campaign believes it leads in Florida by a percentage point or two and that it's floor of support in the state is at least 47 percent: "It's impossible for us to be at 44 in Florida."

But even fans of Obama are shaking their heads about his debate last week.

North Port resident Virginia Leonard, 92 is a registered Republican who voted for McCain four years ago, but is firmly in Obama's camp this time. Still, she wondered if Obama had been drugged he was so lethargic in the debate.

Democrat Dora Williams, a 71-year-old St. Petersburg retiree, also supports Obama but was taken aback by the debate.

"I was like, 'Ooh, why didn't he speak up?' But he was caught by surprise so I understand that," she said. "When somebody is lying to your face, you can be caught off guard."

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson appears to be a non-factor in Florida, with just 1 percent backing him or any other third party candidate.

Florida voters were closely divided on the president's job performance last month, but this week the poll found 54 percent disapprove of his performance and 44 percent approve. Forty five percent have a favorable view of Obama and 49 percent an unfavorable view, while 50 percent have a favorable view of Romney and only 38 percent an unfavorable view.

Fifty four percent see the country heading on the wrong track and 41 percent say it's on the right track. Forty four percent say they are better off today than four years ago and 50 percent said they're not.

"This man, Obama, has done little, but he has done something. Also keep in mind that the previous president left the country in bad shape, and the current president has not had enough time to fix things. We have to give him more time to fix things right," said Lorenzo Ruiz, 84, of Miami.

But on key questions Romney has the advantage:

• Who do you trust more to improve the economy? Romney 50 percent, Obama 44 percent.
• Who do you trust more on foreign policy? Romney 49 percent, Obama 46 percent.
• Who do you trust more to look out for the middle class? Romney 50 percent, Obama 47 percent.
• Who do you consider more trustworthy to lead the nation? Romney 51 percent, Obama 46 percent.
• Whose plans are more likely to do more long-term harm to Medicare? Obama 54 percent, Romney 40 percent.

"I think Medicare as we know it will cease to exist because its not sustainable for the future. We do need to have change in the way it's handled. Medicare and Social Security are both going to have to change," said Ron Govin, a 72-year-old Republican from Temple Terrace, a Romney supporter who watched the debate with interest.

"I thought Romney presented some pretty defendable decisions that indicated what he would do. Contrary to that, I thought the president was almost like he wasn't there in his response. Almost like it was kind of new to him," Govin said.

The Obama campaign is worried.  Add to those poll numbers this one taken among Jewish voters and you get the picture that the tide has turned.

 I think we can safely put Florida on the Romney side.  Unless Mitt Romney makes some very serious gaffs in the next 2 debates, a highly unlikely prospect, on November 6th, 2012 the American People will tell President Barack Hussein Obama:

Your Fired!