The Shaming of the True

Much was made by the left wing media over Mitt Romney's supposed gaffe when he told a group of fund-raisers, in a private meeting, that 47% of Americans were likely to support Mr. Obama because they are beneficiaries of government largesse. While his statement was true, (in fact it probably understated the reality of how many Americans get government benefits) it was nevertheless panned by Obama supporters as proof Romney was "out of touch" with reality. In fact it was just the opposite. It was proof positive that Romney had a clear-eyed grasp of the truth, even in those early days of his campaign, and that, even then, he knew that he was facing the soul-searing, mind-numbing, next to impossible reality that he had to convince at least 51% of the voters that continuing runaway government spending could not continue even if some of them may be getting government money. In other words, Romney told the truth, and was punished, shamed and ridiculed for it. The election results make it appear that he failed to convince the 51% of voters, or do they? On closer examination, reality may be something entirely different. Voter fraud could have played the key roll in Obama's unlikely triumph.

How is it that those who are willing to point out obvious truths can be made to feel guilty for pointing them out? How can it be that society has been so corrupted that those who support self-reliance, frugality, prudence, clean-living and honest dealing can be held up to public ridicule? It is as though we have, as a society, entered that looking-glass world where "impossible to believe" things must simply be accepted, and to not accept them puts you at risk of symbolically having your head lopped off. When did we come to the point that you will be shamed and suppressed if you tell the truth?

Speaking of impossible to believe things, the improbable increase in turnout in the very voter-districts where Obama was most supported is a pip. What objective person can rationally think that only those super-patriotic voters who live in the most blue sections of Miami, Philadelphia, and Cleveland were somehow motivated to show up in record numbers, often approaching and reaching 100% or more of all eligible voters who live in those districts? Sorry, this doesn't wash, even in this Alice fairy tale world. There is no rational way to explain this. Voter turn-out was down pretty much all over the United States, except in the relatively few crucial Obama-supporting areas where, in spite of high unemployment, out of control deficits, and laughable foreign policy, those highly civic-minded citizens turned out like never before to vote to return Obama to the White House. Ridiculous!

The hardest reality we, as a nation, must face at this point includes the apparently utter futility of pursuing the truth about this election. At this point in our descent to societal oblivion, even if incontrovertible evidence from multiple unimpeachable sources were brought forward that proved, without a doubt,that Obama won reelection due to outright fraud, you wouldn't be able to correct this injustice. Obama would remain president is spite of it. The press would ignore and do everything in their power to suppress and ridicule your proof. You wouldn't be able to find a single judge or court who had the courage to risk the outrage this course of events would undoubtedly produce in the very 47% of Americans Mr. Romney was referencing in his remarks to his backers not so long ago. We all would be cowed into submission. This is the sad reality of America today. We have reached point where we are willing to call evil good, and good evil, up is down, down is up, green is purple, orange is green. We've arrived behind the looking glass (and it is an evil place) and it appears doubtful we'll ever find our way back.

Obama's Debate Feint

Boxers know well the tactic of setting up their opponents with feints. If they can get them to try to counter a false move, it might open them up for a roundhouse punch that could knock them out and thus win the fight. Obama was already on the ropes when he came up with his attempt to take out his opponent with one big punch. The tactic failed.

Shortly after the topic of Libya came up Obama said: "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror".(He actually said "acts of terror," but the difference is slight.) Romney, then incredulous, questioned if he had in fact used those words. As it turned out, he had. And the left has been trying ever since to make this one blip into a great victory for Obama. Only one problem: Obama, after the Rose Garden speech, never used the words "terrorist attack" again. He doggedly avoided these terms to label the event, even when pressed to do so. Why? What would have been so bad if the president had admitted what every thinking person already knew? They were terrorists attacks. Why not just admit it? But he and his minions didn't. They went out of their way to tell a false story about video outrage.

While it is impossible to know for sure what the person who wrote this Rose Garden speech for the president really had in mind, the case can be made that he was referring to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers that occurred in 2001 when he said acts of terror. He had been talking about those attacks just before. Obama's subsequent repeated statements give much credence to this opinion since after this Rose Garden speech, Obama and his surrogates universally referred to the Libya attacks as a spontaneous reaction of outrage engendered by a Youtube video. Obama himself referred to this video in the context of causing the embassy attack no fewer that 5 times at the United Nations. Ms Rice, his surrogate, went on several TV talk shows that Sunday and reiterated the administration's view that this murder was the result of a rag-tag group of demonstrators being upset by an obscure video and its portrayal of Mohamed. It wasn't until about two weeks later, when the evidence was insurmountable that the terrorist attack had nothing to do with a video, but rather was an organized, well-calculated and well-planned attack involving rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. At this point the Obama administration was finally forced to admit that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration about a video but was in fact a terrorist attack.

But the question remains as to why the president first used the words "acts of terror" and then obstinately refused to characterize the attacks as terrorist attacks? What was to be gained by refusing to use the term "terrorist attack" to describe the murder of our ambassador and three other americans on American Soil? The Obama crowd were all-to-ready to label Mr. Romney's response to these same events as "politicizing" the death of Americans. Mr. Romney's well-reasoned, and presidential statement about these events was, in fact, a heart-felt effort to reach out to the families, followed by an understandable denunciation of the Embassy in Egypt apologizing to the terrorists for our national tradition of allowing our citizens to make videos, even when they might be offensive to some.... it's called free speech.

The fact is, Obama refused to admit this was a terrorist attack, and perpetuated the lie about the video for one reason and one reason only: politics. One can imagine the chagrin his handlers must have endured when they heard him utter the words "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden. They must have admonished him to never say those words again. The thinking must have gone along these lines: "We can't admit we have been attacked by terrorists. We have spent millions carefully cultivating the image that, due to your great leadership, you have throttled Al Qaeda, and killed Osama. We need the American people to think you are invincible and we are not susceptible to any terrorist attacks." Talk about politicizing the event! This is the king of politicizing! And the same people who encouraged the president to steadfastly hold on to his lie about the video accused Romney of playing politics with the terrorist attacks! Romney said what Obama should have said, and he said it first. It is sad really.

Of course Obama won't be able do duck Mr. Romney's recitation of his and his spokespersons's repeated parroting of their outrageous lie at every turn when they meet again next Monday. You almost have to feel sad for Obama. He can't hide from the path he has chosen.

Conservatives Need to Close Ranks with Romney

OK. I know a lot of hard-core conservatives don't really consider Mitt Romney to be their absolute first choice. I know they are upset by some of the positions he has taken in the past. I know they are not sure he is as "committed" a conservative as they are, but at this point, with less than forty days until the general election, the time has come to cease and desist with their carping and criticizing. Romney is the most conservative candidate they have, period. He is way more conservative than Obama and by continuing to criticize everything he does, they are helping to re-elect Obama. Is that what they want?

It's bad enough that there are plenty of "faux" conservatives such as Peggy Noonan and Bill Kristol screaming about "gaffes" Romney has supposedly made, such as the entirely truthful statement that 47+ percent of Americans are not paying taxes and are beholden to the federal government to some extent, and are thus likely to support Obama. Or the equally truthful, and very presidential response to the outrageous murder of our diplomats in Lybia. Why was this a "gaffe?" He merely said what Obama should have said at the time. The fact that Obama lied about the whole incident for over a week and failed even to condemn the event for a day or two speaks volumes about Obama's lack of foreign policy acumen. This was a positive moment for Romney, not a gaffe.

Yet we are bombarded by so-called conservative radio talk-show hosts saying: "Romney should say this, or he should take that position...." while ticking off some pet issues. My question is how do they know what Romney has said about these issues? The news media refuses to run any clips of Romney's stump speech unless they think there is some "gaffe" they can point out and exploit. I have heard Mr. Romney talk about and support some of the very things these talk show hosts are criticizing him about, but apparently the talk show hosts don't even know what his positions truly are. It's not Mitt Romney's fault that the liberal, Obama-supporting news media refuses to report what Mr. Romney has said. What good does speaking negatively do at this point? They are just giving ammunition to the left. Is that what they are trying to do? If so, get ready for another Obama administration and the ruination of our country. There will be legions of "reporters" who will miss no opportunity to criticize everything Mr. Romney says. They don't need any help. If you listen to a Romney stump speech, he takes many principled stances on many of the very conservative issues the talk show hosts are yakking about. Ronald Reagan had a simple 11th commandment that should apply at this point: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. So-called conservative talk show hosts should bear that in mind.