There is nothing like having unbiased media coverage of the all-important presidential campaign leading up to next week’s election. And the media is nothing like unbiased. We see this playing out again as Mitt Romney is now being accused of misrepresenting a story that Bloomberg.com reported on Chrysler’s potential outsourcing of Jeep manufacturing to China. A look at the original comments from the article gives evidence as to how unfair the criticism is and just how right Romney was for pointing out the likely future outsourcing of Jeep manufacturing.
According to the Detroit Free Press, Romney stated during an Ohio rally, “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.” Governor Romney was referring to the Bloomberg (hardly a right-wing organization) piece which stated, “Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region.” This inference was taken from comments that a Chrysler / Fiat executive made when he questioned whether the automaker should, “… be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio” by manufacturing Jeeps in China. The facts seem very clear that Romney made an understandable assessment of the story. The Bloomberg statement that Chrysler / Fiat may eventually make all Jeeps in China led to Romneys claim that a news story reported that Jeep was thinking of moving all production to China. Sure sounds logical to me.
The biased media and the Obama team are claiming Romney was wrong as Chrysler recently flip-flopped and attempted to clarify its comments by now saying that it may only move SOME of the Jeep manufacturing to China. Fair enough. The fact remains, a bailed out auto company (Chrysler) that was given to the Italians (Fiat) by the Obama Administration is likely to move at least some, if not eventually all, production of Jeeps to China. Taxpayers paid billions of dollars for the bailout and now it appears jobs will be lost to China just as Obama accuses Romney of being the outsourcer. And there is absolutely no justification to accuse Romney of being wrong, as he accurately interpreted the original story.
Planned outsourcing has also been evidenced at the other bailed out automaker, General Motors, which earlier announced that it would be moving its electric vehicle platform to China. As expected, no media coverage was given to the story. And now when a story is run by Bloomberg, a reputable news organization, on possible outsourcing by Chrysler, the news is twisted to criticize the Republican presidential candidate. If the media wants to find clear evidence of misrepresentation, they need not look further than their much-favored incumbent. Individuals who read or view news stories on the political events leading up to election time will have to judge for themselves just who is telling the truth. “Conservative bloggers” often are referred to by media sources that try to discredit viewpoints that differ from the mainstream media. These are the same media sources that would have had Americans believe that the heavily subsidized Chevy Volt was a great success and supply could not keep up with the overwhelming demand for the vehicle with huge waiting lists of buyers for the vehicle, despite all evidence to the contrary. The auto bailouts are treated as a great success by the elite media who ignore the billions of taxpayer dollars lost or the unfair treatment of classes that were not as politically popular as the UAW.
Go HERE for even more!
Four senators sent a letter to the White House today, urging President Obama and his advisers to answer the growing list of questions about the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, which lawmakers have posed in writing to his administration over the last month. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), the authors of the letter, explain to the president:
The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that resulted in the murder of four Americans—including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Unfortunately, you and your senior administration officials have not been forthcoming in providing answers to the many questions that have emerged.On October 9, 2012, we sent a letter to the senior intelligence officials in your administration in an effort to obtain answers to these questions. More than three weeks have passed, and we still have not received a response. To make matters worse, since that original letter, we sent several subsequent letters to you or to your senior administration officials asking a number of questions, and we have failed to receive a single letter in response.The American people and their representatives in Congress need to understand what you knew about the Benghazi terrorist attack and when you knew it. We also have a right to know what steps you and your administration took—or failed to take—before, during, and after the terrorist attack to protect American lives….
The Washington Post (10/25/2012), in giving President Barack Obama an endorsement for another four years, wrote, “Much of the 2012 presidential campaign has dwelt on the past, but the key questions are who could better lead the country during the next four years — and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing.” The suggestion appears to be that a president is not to be held accountable to his promises and past record and that his past record is no indication of his future behavior. Possibly, the Washington Post people believe that a black president shouldn’t be held accountable to his record and campaign promises. Let’s look at it.
What about Obama’s pledge to cut the deficit in half during his first term in office? Instead, we saw the first trillion-dollar deficit ever, under any president of the United States. Plus, it has been followed by trillion-dollar deficits in every year of his administration. What about Obama’s pledge of transparency, in which his legislative proposals would be placed on the Internet days before Congress voted on them so that Americans could inspect them? Obama’s major legislative proposal, Obamacare, was enacted in such secrecy and with such speed that even members of Congress did not have time to read it. Remember that it was Rep. Nancy Pelosi who told us, “But we have to pass the (health care) bill so that you can find out what is in it.” What about Obama’s stimulus packages and promises to get unemployment under control? The Current Employment Statistics program shows that in 2008, the total number of U.S. jobs was more than 138 million, compared with 133.5 million today. As Stanford University economics professor Edward Lazear summed it up, “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.”
While Obama’s national job approval rating is a little less than 50 percent, among blacks his job approval is a whopping 88 percent. I’d like to ask people who approve of Obama’s performance, “What has President Obama done during the past four years that you’d like to see more of in the next four years?”
Black support of politicians who have done little or nothing for their ordinary constituents is by no means unusual. Blacks are chief executives of major cities, such as Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington, Memphis, Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Oakland, Newark, Cleveland and Cincinnati. In most of these cities, the chief of police, the superintendent of schools and other high executives are black. But in these cities, black people, like no other sector of our population, suffer from the highest rates of homicides, assaults, robberies and shootings. Black high-school dropout rates in these cities are the highest in the nation. Even if a black youngster manages to graduate from high school, his reading, writing and computational proficiency is likely to be equivalent to that of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. That’s even with school budgets per student being among the highest in the nation.
Last year, in reference to President Obama’s failed employment policies and high unemployment among blacks, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said, “If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House.” That’s a vision that seems to explain black tolerance for failed politicians — namely, if it’s a black politician whose policies are ineffectual and possibly harmful to the masses of the black community, it’s tolerable, but it’s entirely unacceptable if the politician is white.
Black people would not accept excuses upon excuses and vote to re-elect decade after decade any white politician, especially a Republican politician, to office who had the failed records of our big-city mayors.
What that suggests about black people is not very flattering.
Does anyone believe that when Barack Obama loses on November 6, he will go quietly?
This election is shaping up to be a landslide loss for the president, and by the ever-present look of desperation on his face, he knows it. The nation should be preparing for how he might react when it happens — there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered god.
In 2008, Americans wholeheartedly bought the Obama dream. It’s never easy to let go of a dream, but today, people have let go of Obama the dream — and on November 6, they will let go of Obama the man.
The debates served two purposes — namely, showing the world that Mitt Romney was not the evil mastermind Obama and his crew had spent hundreds of millions of dollars portraying him to be while erasing the myth of Obama as invincible and inevitable.
For a man who is supposedly brilliant, it was devastating to see him perform like an uninformed moron in Denver. It can be said that he was unprepared, but whose fault was that? Preparation was too much of a “drag,” and he wanted to see the Hoover Dam — a particular draw for him, since it has always been a dream of Barack the god to build an Obama Dam while Americans forced to live in the economy he has built scream “God damn Obama.”
The last two debates showed that the president did not understand what was going on. He thought he needed to be more aggressive, but all America saw was a rude and obnoxious man, with a dismal record of governance and no plan for the future. It used to be said that he is likable, but his condescension and constant belittling of Mitt Romney dispelled that notion.
He spent millions of dollars and much of the past year trying to define Mitt Romney and was outraged when his carefully concocted caricature didn’t show up. Most people saw a man who was reasonable and presidential. A nation shell-shocked by four years of failed leadership saw the next president of the United States.
Barack thought he was a guaranteed victor in his re-election campaign. He thought the aura of his presence would so cow Romney into submission that when all was said and done, he would have the governor promising to vote for him as well.
Since his election, however, Obama has always been destined to lose — America simply does not want what he is selling. But after his performance in the debates, many who had been inclined to perhaps give him a second chance took another look and didn’t like what they saw: a nasty, petulant, thin-skinned man, uninformed and without a plan to move forward — and all this on top of his disastrous record.
Yet he will not go away. In the best-case scenario, on November 7, Obama begins his march toward 2016. His entire life has been an exercise in running for president. Yet, paradoxically, when he attained the exalted position he so coveted, he acted as if it was a burden, and that we Americans did not deserve him — in the end, only playing at being president while thoroughly enjoying the plane, the parties, and the perks.
He may never have been more than a part-time president, but to expect him to give up the job easily or gracefully is to fall prey to wishful thinking.
His monstrous ego will not allow any other course of action but to fight.
But, after his loss in two weeks, he will be forever destroyed as a viable option, at least electorally — the cloak of invincibility and transcendent brilliance having succumbed to the reality of the man. He will become a mere mortal — the veneer of likability stripped away by the truth of his pettiness and anger.
In short, he will never again be able to win the presidency at the ballot box.
And therein lies the danger. If Obama knows he can’t win in 2016, he just might claim election fraud and attempt to stay. In a way, this could be what Attorney General Eric Holder’s war on voter ID is all about — establishing an argument for overturning supposedly fraudulent results. If his claim is validated by sycophantic media minions, it could gain traction among the electorate. It certainly will be believed by his small cadre of ardent supporters. After that, there is no telling what he might do — or what his followers might do.
I would like to believe that Obama will exit gracefully. And I have a hard time accepting that he or his cohorts will foment rioting in the streets — despite threats tweeted by twits on Twitter — or that he will impose martial law. But, if I learned anything during decades in business, it is that proper preparation is paramount — no one can know for sure what the future holds. The prudent prepare for all eventualities.
After all, we don’t really know Barack Obama. His history is a chimera. The only information we have on the man is what he has told us in his two biographies and the slightly less than fpur years we have watched his disastrous reign of incompetence.
Just look at his recent actions. He has no problem ignoring the First Amendment and throwing a YouTube videographer in prison to sustain his pretend version of events surrounding the assassination of our ambassador in Benghazi.
He has no qualms falsely touting a little-watched video as the reason for Islamic unrest — even to the point of causing riots at dozens of American embassies worldwide.
Those with open eyes know what this president is capable of.
Is this a man we can trust to accept the verdict of the electorate? I would like to believe yes, but all the evidence points to no.
It never occurred to Obama that he would not win a second term. He saw Mitt Romney as a mere businessman, and we know what Obama thinks of businessmen. He had dealt with many in the past — they were greedy and easily converted into crony capitalists by government cash and preferential treatment.
Hubris is the most dangerous of emotions — and Obama views all around him as extensions of himself. When he looks into the eyes of Americans, all he sees is his own reflection. He has surrounded himself with those who tell him only what he wants to hear. He lives in a bubble, but it is a bubble of his own creation, and because of that, he can’t see it as a bubble. He sees it as reality.
It’s simple logic. In Libya there is only one possible threat to an AC130 gunship: surface to air missiles. Thus this is the only way Panetta wasn’t lying when he said that it was lack of information about the threat environment that kept him from sending defenders into “harm’s way” in Benghazi. He must have been afraid that the jihadists were lying in wait with surface to air missiles, and he had good reason to suspect such a ploy.
A primary task of the Libyan mission was to round up the war materiel of the deposed and decomposing Moammar Ghadaffi and funnel it to chosen opponents of Assad in Syria. Which part of the Syrian opposition has Obama been choosing to supply? Al Qaeda:
“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.
The paper quotes one U.S. official as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” adding that “officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.”
According to Adm. James A. Lyons (retired), the Libyan arms that have been funneled to the jihadists include substantial numbers of surface to air missiles:
We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”
So of course Panetta had to worry about the jihadists having man-portable SAMs. He had been supplying them, and a successful SAM attack on our military with these U.S. supplied weapons would be devastating for Obama’s election chances. From the start of the Libyan operation critics have been complaining about U.S. aid going to the jihadists. To have that treasonous strategy backfire in such spectacular fashion would be Fast and Furious times a thousand.
So they made a calculated decision. Our people on the ground would be sacrificed to Obama’s political ambition and the Obamatons would coordinate on a cover story about there not being any planned attack at all, when it actually appeared to them to be so well planned as to look like a possible trap.
If it wasn’t a trap, responding with force was an obvious political winner
The same logic applies for Obama. On the surface the attack presented Obama with a windfall opportunity to chew up and spit out what now look to have been hundreds of jihadists, all of whom would be sitting ducks for an AC130. Here was a chance for Obama to really dance on bin Laden’s grave, slaughtering the jihadists on 9/11 itself, thereby cementing Obama’s claim to the “gutsy call” and likely insuring his re-election. If Obama didn’t fear a trap then responding with force would have been a no-brainer, especially for a political calculator like Obama.
Go and read it all, plus so much more, HERE.
California is one of the few states charging ahead on establishing one of ObamaCare’s health insurance “exchanges.” According to the Los Angeles Times:
California insurance officials have expressed concern about substantial rate hikes for some existing policyholders going into the exchange.
Under a new rating map approved by state lawmakers, the Department of lnsurance estimated that premiums for similar coverage could increase as much as 25% in West Los Angeles, 22% in the Sacramento area and nearly 13% in Orange County.
California officials have floated the idea of legislating lower prices. One way would be to throw West Los Angeles and Orange County into the same risk pools. That might reduce premiums in West L.A., but only by increasing premiums in Orange County. With a few simplifying assumptions, premiums in both West L.A. and the O.C. could rise by 19 percent. An alternative would be to cap premium increases. One state official proposes a cap of 8 percent. But that would just be an implicit form of government rationing. If insurers cannot charge premiums that cover their costs, they will cover fewer services.
If Oklahoma prevails in its lawsuit against the IRS, or if any similar plaintiffs prevail, California will look pretty silly for charging forward with an Exchange. California will have imposed on its employers an unnecessary tax of $2,000 per worker — a tax that California employers can avoid by relocating to states that have not created an Exchange. It will also have unnecessarily exposed 2.6 million California residents to ObamaCare’s individual mandate — i.e., a tax of $2,085 on families of four earning as little as $24,000 per year, which those residents can likewise avoid by relocating to another state.
Well, the dam has burst with the late night comedians. He’ll probably be the only one since we doubt the other bootlickers even know what happened over there.
Now if only the media outside of Fox News would bother asking questions. Well, actually someone at the WaPo does go there, albeit seven weeks late.
Now to go to our door and check out all the trick or treaters. The fewer that show up? The more candy for me! That and maybe something like this will show up?