Alright! Even the great state of Iowa is now joining in the fracas and will go after any Useless Nations people who show up to monitor our elections! Surely now, more states will join?But sure that obama will take time from his unbusy schedule to threaten Iowa with sanctions or something.
SAY. NO. TO. THE. UNITED. NATIONS!
DES MOINES — Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz warned a group of international voting monitors that they face arrest if they monitor polling locations in Iowa next week.
“My office met with two delegation representatives last week to discuss Iowa’s election process, and it was explained to them that they are not permitted at the polls,” Schultz said in a statement released Tuesday. “Iowa law is very specific about who is permitted at polling places, and there is no exception for members of this group.”
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe plans to send observers from its Office for Democratic Institutions to Iowa and other states. According to the group’s website, members have been meeting with election officials and political party workers since last month to discuss their observation plans in the United States.
Attempts to reach Thomas Rymer, spokesman for the Office of Democratic Institutions, were not successful Tuesday.
Schultz said he supports the efforts of other nations to learn about the U.S. election process, but pointed to a statute in Iowa code that limits the number of people at a particular polling place. That section of code, with few exceptions, allows poll watchers from political parties, news media and campaigns to be at polling locations.
We’re All Going To Starve
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
You may have seen this a few days ago:
“UN warns of looming worldwide food crisis in 2013
• Global grain reserves hit critically low levels
• Extreme weather means climate ‘is no longer reliable’
• Rising food prices threaten disaster and unrest
If this comes as news to you — then you have not been paying attention.
See, a number of us from the “conservative commentariat” have been warning of just such dangers for years now.
Just so we are clear — I don’t buy the UN’s global warming/climate change excuse. Weather is what weather IS — period. The earth has periods that are great growing seasons and we have some periods that are lousy growing seasons — and — since man first set foot on “Terra Firma,” there have been periods of famine and starvation. World overpopulation had nothing to do with it then, either.
The warning that earth will be struck by famine next year blames low grain reserves as one of the contributing factors. I can’t argue with that.
Question: Is the US the only country to burn their grain in their automobiles and trucks? Hum. Just wondering.
Continue reading this HERE.
This one is really hard to believe, even for the most biased so-called “news network” in the nation.
MSNBC on Tues
day totally trashed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for collecting food and supplies at a storm relief rally in Ohio to be sent to victims of Hurricane Sandy (video follows with transcript and commentary):
After introducing his Obama-supporting guests Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Lehigh professor James Peterson, host Martin Bashir played a clip of the President speaking at the Red Cross headquarters in Washington Tuesday.
When the clip concluded, Bashir said, “Mayor Reed, so the Red Cross knows what it’s doing. Did he, did you detect perhaps a subtle dig there on Mr. Romney who spent today going against the guidelines established by the Red Cross and holding a campaign rally in Ohio that was dressed up like a charity drive collecting food and other supplies when the Red Cross expressly asked people not to do that?”
Imagine that. A presidential candidate who gives millions of dollars a year to charity does a storm relief event in Ohio, and an MSNBC anchor is disgusted by it because the Red Cross would prefer people donating cash.
Yet according to the Washington Post:
The stop was billed as a “storm relief” event, and attendees were asked to bring non-perishable foods and other items for those affected by the storm. Long white tables to one side of the cavernous James S. Trent Arena were piled high with flashlights, batteries, diapers, toothbrushes, mini-deodorants, fleece blankets, cereal, toilet paper and canned goods.
Two large TV screens at the front of the venue bore the logo of the American Red Cross and the message: “Sandy: Support the Relief Effort. Text ’REDCROSS’ to 90999 to make a $10 donation.”
So besides the food and supplies that Ohioans generously donated, two large television screens asked participants to send money to the Red Cross.
But this didn’t make Bashir happy. Ditto his Obama-supporting guests.
“I think that this is just another moment where you see the clear striking difference between a president who has a heart for the American people and someone who simply wants to be president of the United States,” said Mayor Reed.
“Indeed,” replied Bashir who then asked for Peterson’s input.
“I would agree,” echoed Peterson. “It’s compassion that shows through in times like these. It’s humanity that shows through in times like these, and it just seems clear that the President, in addition to stepping up and doing what he does as Commander-in-Chief, demonstrates compassion in these remarks and in his approach to this kind of serious disaster.”
“All we’ve seen from Romney and from his surrogates is all kinds of politicizing and misdirection,” Peterson continued, “and I think the American people in this sort of disastrous moment can really see in bold relief the differences between President Obama and former Governor Romney.”
So having a storm relief event with tables “piled high with flashlights, batteries, diapers, toothbrushes, mini-deodorants, fleece blankets, cereal, toilet paper and canned goods” along with two large television screens calling for donations to the Red Cross demonstrates a lack of compassion on MSNBC.
Yet the network didn’t end there.
Here we have obama checking out the aftermath of hurricane sandy…
This is via DC:
As Hurricane Sandy was approaching the Jersey Shore, President Barack Obama has suspended his campaign activities to be at the ready for the pending crisis. But on Monday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wasn’t convinced it wasn’t just for political imaging purposes.
Krauthammer compared Obama’s willingness to be out front on Sandy to his lack of willingness to be out front on Benghazi, which he said suggested political opportunism.
“He says he’s not concerned about the impact on the elections,” Krauthammer said. “I’m sure he’s very sincere on that. It is a little odd that he shows up in the briefing room, where he hasn’t shown up in the briefing room for about, what — a month and a half on Libya, or for everything else for that matter? Then you get the photo-ops of him in the situation room deploying, I guess, the utility crews who will restore power all over America. Whereas you would think he might want to use the situation room and had convened high-level people during the nine hours our people were under attack in Benghazi.”
Krauthammer went on to explain why the onus of the disaster prep and relief isn’t on the president, but on the governors of states. But in this instance he suggested it is serving as an opportunity for the commander-in-chief to steer the momentum of the election back his way.
“It’s hard to look at this, playing the president, playing the commander-in-chief in what’s a natural disaster that really doesn’t a lot of leadership from the White House,” Krauthammer said. “It’s up to the governors mostly. The White House and the governors release money. That’s about all that they do. And he’s really good at releasing money and pretending it’s not about politics. He wants to use this to show himself in command and I think he might actually be the beneficiary of the fact that all national attention is drawn away for three days. Romney clearly had the momentum, it slowed down but it was still heading in his direction. It’s not clear what happens when the country sort of wakes up out of this in three days and restarts attention on the campaign, whether the momentum will be gone or not. I mean, that’s an open question.”
Finish here reading and viewing the videos. Go HERE.
Some obamabot just said he will donate three bucks!
To understand what went wrong in the Benghazi mission, it’s important to begin by looking at what was so unique about it.
When the Islamist mobs began their September 11 rampage, they found embassies with high walls, heavy security and police protection. Even in Tunis and Cairo, where the Arab Spring Islamist regimes have been accused of collaborating with their fellow Salafists, there were credible military and police forces capable of preventing the kind of full scale assault that took place in Benghazi.
The mission in Benghazi, however, was an American diplomatic facility with few defenses in a city where the police were virtually helpless against the Islamist militias and where the national government had announced that it would allow the Salafists to destroy Sufi tombs rather than intervene.
On September 1, I wrote that the real implication of these remarks was that the Libyan government had given the Islamists a free hand and would take no action no matter what they did. And bloodshed was sure to follow. Ten days later it did.
After the fall of Saddam, American diplomatic facilities in Iraq did not remain unguarded or protected only by local militias. It was always understood that American diplomatic facilities in a country whose government had recently fallen were sitting ducks and needed heavy protection. The State Department cables show that this was something that quite a few of the Americans on the ground also understood. The Benghazi consulate had been attacked, and its next attack would only be a matter of time.
When Al Qaeda decided to commemorate September 11 with a wave of attacks on American diplomatic facilities across the Muslim world, from Tunis all the way to Indonesia, in a recreation of its own 1998 embassy attacks, its planners paid special attention to the one facility that was a soft target and surrounded by jihadist fighters. A facility that was a perfect target because it was completely exposed.
Benghazi should have either had the same protection that a similar facility in Iraq would have or it should have been closed down. Instead the State Department chose to rely on its friendly relations with the jihadists, having forgotten the story of the scorpion and the frog, trusting in an Islamist militia linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and to its future Al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar Al Sharia attackers to protect it.
The State Department was not being cheap. Its budget had climbed steadily under Obama and it could have set up another Green Zone in Benghazi if it chose to. But that would have been a flashback to the Bush era that represented everything the appeasement lobby had hated about those eight years.
Libya was meant to be a new kind of war. Not a display of American arrogance and unilateralism, but a show of submissiveness to the goals and ambitions of the Muslim world. In post-American diplomacy, the Americans did not arrive with a show of force, surrounded by Marines and heavy fortifications, but bent humbly under the defensive shield of the Islamist Ummah. Rather than exporting the Dar Al Harb, the Americans would ask for the protection of the Dar Al Islam.
The reason that the Navy SEALS were denied the support of a Spectre C-130U gunship was the same reason that the consulate had been left nearly unguarded. And it was the same reason that so many soldiers had died in Afghanistan because they had been denied air and artillery support or even the permission to open fire.
What happened in Benghazi was only extraordinary because it caught the attention of the public, but American soldiers in Afghanistan had been suffering under the same conditions ever since it was decided that winning the hearts and minds of Afghan civilians was more important than the lives of American soldiers.
The four Americans killed in Benghazi lived and died by the same code as thousands of Americans in Afghanistan. And that code overrode loyalty to one’s own people in favor of appeasing Muslims. The two former SEALS broke that code, violating orders by going to protect the consulate and were abandoned in the field by an administration that prioritized Muslim opinions over American lives.
From the post-American diplomatic perspective, the lives of a few Americans, who knew what they were getting into, was a small sacrifice to make when weighed against the potential of turning the entire Muslim world around. A Spectre gunship blasting away at an Islamist militia in the streets of Benghazi would have ended the fiction of a successful war in Libya and infuriated most of the Islamist militias. Worst of all, it would have made Americans seem like imperialists, instead of helpful aides to the Islamist transition of the Arab Spring. It would have ruined everything and so it was shut down.
Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were not the first Americans to be abandoned by their country for diplomatic reasons. They will not be the last. And while we investigate and expose the decisions that their government made, it is important for us to remember that such decisions come out of a mindset that says there are diplomatic goals that are more important than American lives. This mindset did not begin with the War on Terror and it will not end until it is exposed for what it is.
During Israel’s descent into peace madness, its left-wing government coined a phrase for those Israelis killed in terrorist attacks, calling them, “Sacrifices of Peace.”
Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are our government’s sacrifices of peace. They died so that we might go on in our futile effort to win over the Muslim world. And they are not the only ones. There is no way of knowing how many of the 1,500 Americans who were killed in Obama’s surge died because they were prevented from firing first or denied air support. But the number is likely to be in the hundreds.
There has been some suggestion that the President’s hands were tied in dealing with the 9/11 attack in Benghazi because we had no forces and equipment available to assist the trapped men. Retired Adm. Ace Lyons, former CinCPacFlt takes issue with such a defense:
Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say the offense is so serious violators should face the death penalty.
The results came in a groundbreaking scientific poll for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Oct. 22-26 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.
The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.
And the big winner among Muslim-Americans in the presidential election is Barack Obama, the poll found. More than 72 percent said they are definitely supporting Obama, and another 8.5 percent are leaning that direction. Only 11 percent are for Romney.
Nearly 55 percent of the American Muslim voters say the U.S. is on the right track, and another 13 percent are uncertain. Virtually all of the respondents (98 percent) are American citizens and 97 percent are registered to vote.
“Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.
“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,” he said.
Wenzel said even the 9 percent “undecided” on that particular question is alarming.
“Seldom in survey research does a response of ‘not sure’ carry such significance, but the response to this question certainly is a surprise, given the severity of the question, and offers insight into the conflict that some Muslims appear to face in making the ideals under-girding American society fit into their religious lifestyle,” he said.
Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree.
While 80 percent said that they somewhat or strongly disagree with the idea, when those who said they were not sure are added, one in five Muslims across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty.
More Muslim women (10.4 percent) than Muslim men (4.9 percent) said they strongly agree with the idea, while 12.4 percent of the women and 7.1 percent of the men were uncertain about the issue involving Muhammad.
Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law.
“A much smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,” Wenzel said.
Read it all and see the full results here.
Right here is the big difference between a REAL PRESIDENT and just a pretender who has to be voted out of offic3.
From Greg Halvorson at American Thinker:
Wow. I never get used to it… As hyper-informed and cognizant of the evil/buffoonery/cravenness of this administration as I am, I never get used to the petty, maladroit, and moronic e-mails with which they pepper their base.
No-I’m not part of the base, but my masochistic side subscribes to Obama-blasts, Moochelle-blasts, Messina-Axelrod-Springsteen-Sheryl Crow…. You get the point: masochism. None so painful as this shameless tripe on the eve of a dangerous storm affecting 20% of the U.S. population:
After all Barack has done in office, and after all you have done to build this campaign, we can’t afford to watch everything slip away on Election Night.
But the other side has out-raised us-our opponents have $45 million more than we do for the Final Stretch…. And none of us has ever seen what a barrage of money like that will do.
That’s why we need to do everything we can in the last days, and why we still need your support.
And, until, tomorrow night, any donation you make will automatically enter you to meet Barack on Election Night!
We can either give it our all in these final days, or wake up on November 7th wishing we’d done a little more.
Supporting this campaign once more will move us closer to victory, and enter you to win a trip to join Barack on Election Night.
Contrast that to the Romney e-mail this morning:
|… while the Romneys bag supplies for the hurricane victims.|
Tonight, Ann and I are keeping the people in Hurricane Sandy’s path in our thoughts and prayers.
I hope that if you can, you will reach out to your neighbors who may need help getting ready for the storm-especially your elderly neighbors.
And if you can give of your resources or time, please consider supporting your local Red Cross organization – visit www.redcross.org to get involved.
For safety’s sake, as you and your family prepare for the storm, please be sure to bring any yard signs inside. In high winds, they can be dangerous and cause damage to homes and property.
I’m never so proud of Americans as when I see how we pull together in a crisis. There’s nothing that we can’t handle when we stand together.
Stay safe and God bless,
Here, in a nutshell, is next Tuesday’s choice…. A man of character or a man of particularly egregious moral failings compounded by the media’s likeminded turpitude in failing, completely, to expound on the egregiousness. Note how Romney selflessly seeks donations, not for himself, but for hurricane relief; whereas, Obama, via Antoinette, grovels for dimes.
Please, if you live in a swing-state – Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania…. – do not vote alone…. A Zombie Apocalypse can be avoided here, but only if the non-Zombies inundate the polls.