Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Obama's actions in Benghazi, Libya, make him unfit for office. Period.

As more information comes to light on the terrorist attack on our U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, it becomes increasingly clear that President Obama has demonstrated an abysmal failure of duty. For the record, this conclusion has nothing to do with him being a Democrat. If a Republican did what he did in Libya - or rather, what he didn't do - that person would be unfit for office as well. Unfortunately, because it's a Democrat who is responsible, the mainstream media is covering for Obama - and that is simply unacceptable.

Hours after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack, in which four Americans were killed -- US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy personnel, including two former Navy SEALs working as security contractors -- Barack Obama and senior members of the White House tried to blame the attack on a random protest over a ridiculous, amateur YouTube video that poked fun at Islam and the prophet Mohammed. Two weeks after the Benghazi incident, administration officials continued to blame the Libya attack on the internet video despite messages from intelligence officials that the incident was planned by a radical Islamist terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda. 

But intelligence briefings that included warnings of an impending attack on Sept. 11 were repeatedly skipped by President Obama. At the same time, the UK and the Red Cross both pulled out of Libya because of the warnings they, too, had received of imminent danger. But the U.S. left Ambassador Stevens there like a sitting duck.

On the day of the attack, two Navy SEALs who were part of a team at the CIA annex near the consulate heard shots being fired. When they realized our embassy was under attack they made a request for military backup - the request was denied. Ultimately they made three urgent requests for military backup during the attack, all of which were denied. They were also denied permission to help the Ambassador's team at the consulate, being told to wait. Being the real heroes they are, the Navy SEALs, including Tyrone Woods, ignored those orders and went anyway to the consulate to try to help, and were eventually killed in trying to do so. You can't help but wonder - what was going, and what did these heroes hear and witness that was so incredibly bad that they risked their military careers and their lives to ignore orders in favor of helping those in distress.

Reports also indicate at least one military surveillance drone was in the vicinity during the attack sending real-time visuals back to the Situation Room in D.C. - meaning officials from our State Department, our Pentagon, our President - all of whom had first-hand access to this information, and all of whom could have and should have ordered security and back up and any other measure necessary to stop the situation and protect Americans - did nothing. There were even significant military resources available to counterattack that could have been there within two hours (the attack lasted six to seven hours), but all requests for help were denied. 

In fact, as reports were coming in of the attack on Sept. 11, President Obama went to bed without ordering protection for these Americans being attacked on U.S. soil. The next day when he learned our Americans had been murdered - including Ambassador Stevens who was also brutally sodomized before being slaughtered - President Obama caught a flight to Vegas for a campaign fundraiser party in his own honor, complete with music and dancing. Reports say good times were had by all who attended, and that this party was followed by business as usual for the president, including another fundraiser in New York City sponsored by Jay-Z and Beyonce – and an appearance on the David Letterman show. Meanwhile four American citizens lay dead from terrorist attacks because they were not provided help by our own government.

When asked why nothing was done, why no back-up was sent, and why orders were made to wait, rather than defend our American citizens, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, "the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place."  

The release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from the American drone overhead. If real-time video of the attack and communications with Americans on the ground begging for help doesn't constitute "real-time information," what does? And why, leading up to the Sept. 11 anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history, why in the world was our Libyan consulate not fortified with an intense build-up of security? There is no backing out of the accountability that President Obama and his team has failed to demonstrate.

Yet, when Tyrone Wood's casket arrived home, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton approached Tyrone's father standing next to his son's coffin and promised him that, "We will not rest until we get the man responsible for the [YouTube] video." Forget about the men who actually killed Woods' son - the terrorists who admitted blame - our government expended its resources on hunting down and jailing an irrelevant, amateur video maker.

This grievous lack of action on Obama's part illuminates his overall ideology, his one-government worldview where America is not a leader of nations, but just a bit player on the sidelines -- and apparently American casualties are of little consequence with such a morally relativistic mindset. This story needs to be understood because it has everything to do with the character of the man in the White House. There was negligence before the attack, there was negligence during the attack, and there was a cover up after the attack. If that doesn't outrage you simply because you are an Obama supporter no matter what, ask yourself...would it matter to you if this were Bush who had acted so atrociously and the media were suddenly on board telling you how bad this really is? Would you then be calling for Bush's resignation as we should all be doing with Obama? Or will you look the other way and cast your vote once again for Obama simply because he is a Democrat?

Those at the White House knew what was going on as it was happening - but they knew that American voters did not, so it became crucial to try to suppress these facts until after the election. The bottom line is that Obama and his minions denied protection of our own citizens and then tried to blame the attack on something completely false. But the election of Barack Obama is so important, apparently, that Obama, his cabinet, and the sycophants in the mainstream media are simply okay with covering up our president's callous inhumanity in favor of saving him votes. 

As Obama tours the devastated areas of Hurricane Sandy, he very gallantly tells the television cameras days before the election that we will break through all the red tape, and all the bureaucracy, and do whatever it takes to help these victims because, as he put it, "We will never leave any American behind." That is, unless they are Americans pleading for help during a terrorist attack on U.S. soil overseas. In fact, if you'll recall, he referred to this disaster as nothing but "a bump in the road."

Obama's election posturing coupled with his real-time dereliction of duty to our Americans in harm's way in Libya is utterly disgusting, if not treasonous. That anyone could still make flimsy excuses for this man is astounding. for the Libya event alone, Obama is simply unfit to be our Commander in Chief and deserves no American's support. 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

U.N., foreigners to monitor American voters on Nov. 6; Texas AG says, "No way!"

Left wing groups have enlisted the U.N. to help monitor American elections, with the specific focus of looking for "voter suppression" activities by conservative groups, especially in states where voter identification laws are in place, or have been attempted to be put in place.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will send 44 observers from its human rights office around America on election day to monitor various activities, including potential problems at polling places. It's part of a broader observation initiative that will send out an additional 80 to 90 observers from nearly 30 countries to keep an eye on private American citizens.

Liberal-leaning civil rights groups, including The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, met with representatives from the OSCE this week to express their fears about what they say are systematic efforts to suppress minority voters likely to vote for President Obama. In a letter earlier this month to Daan Everts, a senior official with OSCE, they warned of "a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans -- particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities."

Texas is at least one state rejecting this plan for U.N. involvement. In a letter sent by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the AG warns that U.N. poll watchers "do not have jurisdiction in the state and will, therefore, be criminally prosecuted if they attempt to interfere at Texas polling locations on Nov. 6." The letter goes on to say, "Groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system."

It is astounding that we would bring in the U.N. to oversee American elections just because some left-wing groups fear "conservative intimidation". When will our government understand that U.S. Citizens do not want to be world citizens? And where was the OSCE when the Black Panthers were intimidating white seniors at polling stations in Philadelphia in 2010? 

By the way, who is allowing these monitors to come and get involved in our elections? Did Congress ask for them? No. Did the States ask them to come in and be a monitor? No. So how can these liberal groups simply ask the U.N. to get involved in our sovereign, American activities, and nobody has a say in it? Something is definitely not right here.

In a country as vastly huge as America is, it's hopefully unlikely that approximately 135 foreign observers could have much impact with their presence. But on principle, every state in the Union should stand up to these unwanted and unnecessary foreigners on American soil who will attempt to interfere with U.S. elections. Legally they have no jurisdiction to be here in this capacity anyway.

Each and every legal registered voter in this country has a right and even an obligation to vote in the manner that he or she elects. This does not, however, give anybody from any special interest groups or the U.N. the right to monitor the election process. Bravo to Texas for standing up to these non-American forces. Every state should follow its lead and forbid this from taking place. 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

HHS mandate threatens all freedoms, regardless of your views on contraception

As the old saying goes, if you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump right out, but if you start the frog in tepid water and bring it to a boil, by time the frog knows what's happening, it's too late to get out. This is exactly what is happening with the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that requires all employers, regardless of religious beliefs, to provide for coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortifacients in any health plans they offer to employees. Like the frog in the pot of water, the government is starting slowly with the stripping of our rights, hoping we won't notice until all our rights are gone and it's too late to do anything about it.

There are so many things wrong with this HHS directive that it's astounding there are some Americans who don't even realize how serious it is. Someone who may have no moral qualms whatsoever with contraception or even outright abortion may look at this mandate and say, "So what? It doesn't affect me personally, so who cares about this mandate?" But a little bit of critical thinking on the matter is important.

Imagine if an American Muslim business owner who doesn't eat pork on religious grounds because it's considered sinful was forced to pay for pork through his employees' health plans because pork's been shown to have more health benefits than red meat. Wouldn't Muslims be offended and wouldn't such an action strip them of their First Amendment rights not to engage in behavior they think is sinful? As a side note, but one nonetheless worthy of consideration, do you think this administration would ever try to do that to Muslims? Personally, I can't see this administration doing that, not necessarily because of any pro-Muslim bias, but because this administration's hostility is blatantly geared toward Christians.

In reality, the HHS mandate is saying that a woman's right to free contraception is more important than Catholics' First Amendment rights not to participate in something they see as a grave sin. That is a serious moral breach, a serious Constitutional breach, and a devastatingly dangerous action on the part of government to say it has authority over someone's conscience. Think about it. Do not be fooled into believing this is not serious for you just because you may have no moral objections to contraception. If the government can take this right away from Catholics, it can take any right away from you.

Of course, if you side with President Obama's ideology on things in general, then maybe you're not worried about what rights he may take away, because most likely, they'd be rights you'd willingly forfeit (e.g,. your right not to participate in contraception). But one day we could have a new president with a different ideology than our current president, but who shares the idea that personal rights don't matter. The precedent has been set, so now that new president could come after certain rights of yours that do matter to you. This is why this HHS mandate affects all of us.

The issue here is also not whether contraception provides health benefits to a woman. The issue is not that Catholics are forcing their moral views on women - they're not. Nobody anywhere is preventing a woman from using all the contraception she wants (just like a Muslim wouldn't force a non-Muslim to abstain from pork). Women working at Catholic institutions are free to practice contraception if they personally choose to, and they are free to work anywhere they choose should they not be happy with their current employer.

The issue is that, for the first time in American history, the federal government is forcing people to buy products they believe to be sinful. And if the government can force this, they can force anything. So regardless of personal views on contraception, do not lose sight of the big picture, because it is a profoundly dangerous picture that our current government is painting.

Still, some may argue that government uses our tax dollars to engage in war or other things we find morally objectionable, such as capital punishment, so what's the difference? The difference is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizes both war and captial punishment, which are legitimate government powers. Those who don't like that reality are welcome to try a Constitutional amendment to wipe out the government's war powers and do away with capital punishment.

However, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government (and, by extension through the 14th Amendment, any state government) to mandate that a religious institution be complicit in an act it believes constitutes sin. More to the point, the Constitutional grant of religious freedom, by which the government agrees to stay out of managing a religious institution's affairs, either practical or doctrinal,  prohibits such conduct entirely. The HHS mandate is one more example of the Obama administration's fundamental lawlessness.

There are groups of all different beliefs coming out in opposition to this mandate, including Jewish groups who don't believe contraception is wrong, because they recognize that birth control really isn’t the issue. The issue is religious liberty and our Constitutional rights -- period.

Another factor so dangerous about this mandate is that the government, by only narrowly exempting what it considers to be a religious institution, e.g., an actual parish, is defining what constitutes religion. That means that Catholic hospitals, charities and social services are bound to the mandate (despite the blatant lie Joe Biden told in the vice presidential debate). These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them "religious employers" worthy of conscience protection because they do not "serve primary persons who share their religious beliefs." That's because these institutions serve millions of people in need, including non-Catholics. HHS denies Catholic employers in these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of soeciety - a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.

The mandate also means that the millions of individual Catholic employers in non government-defined religious institutions, such as a Catholic owner of an auto mechanic shop, are forced to check their religious beliefs at the door, for they are no longer allowed to practice them as they choose if they are forced to provide for things that they believe to be sinful.

When the government gets in the business of telling us where our religious beliefs begin (inside the walls of a church, according to the government) and where they end (basically once we leave that church), then our country is in serious peril, because the government can make these parameters more and more narrow at will, to the point of outlawing Church teachings against things like homosexuality, saying it violates federal anti-hate laws. One may argue that religious institutions are protected in the Constitution from such things, but the HHS mandate already proves that the Constitution no longer provides adequate protection against an administration who flings our laws aside at whim.

Historically, governments that have sought complete control over their people always started with the small freedoms first, and then went for the rest. The HHS mandate is nothing but a slippery slope toward the end of any freedom this government wants to strip from us.

This is not a "right-left" issue, nor is it just a Catholic issue. Knowing Obama’s disdain for the Constitution and Christianity, his assault against Catholics is just the beginning, and, if left unchecked, his trampling of freedoms won't be reserved for religious people only. The HHS mandate must be stopped - not for the sake of Catholics only, but for all Americans. The only way to do that is to vote in new leadership on November 6, as it may well be our only chance to keep America free.

Make no mistake, we are currently sitting in a pot of tepid water, and the government is slowly turning up the heat. It's imperative we jump out before it's too late.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Friday, October 19, 2012

As more women turn toward Romney, president grasps at straws to discredit him

As the election nears and more women are abandoning President Barack Obama in favor of Mitt Romney, Obama and his campaign are becoming increasingly desperate. So brace yourself for the wild rhetoric and outright lies that will be hurled your way in the coming weeks.

Now that the gender gap is narrowing, Obama is resurrecting his old and false claims that Romney is anti-woman and that the Republicans in general are waging a war on women through "denying" them access to contraception and abortion, and by supporting a wage gap. First of all, in light of the recent tragic shooting of a 14 year-old Muslim girl in Pakistan for daring to express her desire for education, how dare the Democrats even make the claim of any war on women here in America. Shame on them. If anyone is waging a war on women, it is the Muslim extremists who deny their women basic human equalities and shoot little girls for not walking the line.

For the record, Republicans have no plans to deny any woman her precious contraception, and their desire to make abortion rare is not the same as enacting plans to deny women access to it. All Republicans are saying is that people like Sandra Fluke should come up with her own $9 a month to pay for her own contraception - not force Catholics and others morally opposed to such practices to pay for it. If there is a claim to be made that anyone's against women, it would be the liberals' war against the millions of religious women who want no part of another women's birth control, yet are being forced to partake in it. How is it that this simple concept is not only lost on liberals, but then somehow used against Republicans?

And considering that even one abortion in the first trimester increases a woman's chance of developing breast cancer exponentially, Republicans show more concern for women's real health by working toward making abortion rare than do the liberals who treat abortion like a badge of honor. The Democrats' platform used to refer to abortion as something they hope to keep "safe, legal and rare." This year, not only did their platform attempt to remove God (and got booed when they added God back in) but they removed the word "rare" for abortion. They only want it to be safe and legal, and act as though having as many as possible is a good thing. Aside from the cancer risk, Democrats also don't seem to care about the vastly high percentage of women (about 87%) who suffer deep, emotional trauma for years to come after an abortion. And they say Republicans are anti-women?

Obama is also making claims that he will continue to support Planned Parenthood because of the supposed mammograms it performs for women in interest of their health. That is an outright falsehood. Planned Parenthood clinics, at best, refer women for mammograms, but they do not perform them. They perform abortions. The abortions that increase breast cancer risks.

The Democrats are also dragging out the tired accusation of a wage gap that purportedly Republicans embrace. How can the Republicans embrace something that is not even true? The "pay gap" simply looks at the median earnings of all men and women who are full-time workers - not an apple-to-apple comparison of a woman working the exact same job as a man - but because the average of men's earnings overall skew higher, feminists cry discrimination.

The fact is, men and women make different career choices for different reasons. The natural differences between men and women result in different priorities, and therefore, different job ambitions and payscale. Women in general tend to seek jobs that offer comfortable and safe working conditions. In particular, women with children tend to choose lower paying jobs in return for companies that offer work-life balance packages that allow them to be more available for their children. Fathers, on the other hand, tend to seek work that can best support their families, which often means longer hours, and hence more pay on average.

Men also are much more likely to take on higher paying dangerous or physically demanding jobs that most women simply don't want to do. But when the poll numbers show Romney closing in - and even surpassing Obama - with more women starting to see through Obama's lies and, therefore, turning their support toward Romney, the mythical wage-gap scenario is a convenient emotional hotspot to wave in people's faces.

In 2008, Obama made the remark that when you have no substance and nothing to run on, you need to resort to lies, and to make big issues of little ones. Indeed, look who's now desperately making an issue of meaningless things like contraception, false wage-gap conclusions and outright accusations that Romney basically wants women to stay at home and out of the workplace.

Worse, we have record unemployment, record numbers of Americans in poverty and on food stamps, murdered American citizens, including a U.S. Ambassador in a covered-up terrorist attack, diminished standing on the world stage, reckless spending - with more on the way, massive tax increases set for January 1, 2013, and yet the only things theObama campaign can come up with about Romney have to do with ridiculous things like Big Bird and "binders of women" comments.

You have proven your own words to be true, Mr. President. When you have no substance to run on, you must rely on lies and inflammatory rhetoric.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.