IN DEFENSE OF WOMEN VOTERS

It will be a big relief when this election cycle is over because we won’t have to put up with the constant stream of stupid invectives from crazy conservatives and angry liberals. I don’t know about you but I’m getting tired of it. As we’ve survived a senatorial candidate from the right talking about “legitimate rape” so will we survive Eva Longoria forwarding a tweet from some liberal claiming anyone, women included, who vote for Romney are “stupid.” Forest Gump might have said “stupid is as stupid does” when referring to Whoopi Cushion Goldberg suggesting to Ann Romney on the View that her husband didn’t serve in Viet Nam because the Mormons are conscientious objectors. Jeez Whoopi you really are stupid. That’s on par with suggesting our Prexy never served in our armed forces because it would be against his commitment to the Muslim Brotherhood. The assumption by some on the right and a whole lot more on the left that women, in particular, are some monolithic voting block is, well, insulting. While women are concerned about abortion, contraception and the like, so are men. And just as men are concerned about the economy, so are women. Women are not only out in the work place but so-called “stay at home moms” are often the ones having to figure out family budgets, stretching every dollar to make ends meet. When statistics show that about 43% of Americans identify themselves as very or moderately conservative, those polls include women. I suspect that while a majority of Catholic women, for example, use contraception, they don’t appreciate having their basic religious tenets interfered with by a secular government. I suspect that when mom has to fill up at the gas pump, she’s more than a little concerned about what our government is really doing about developing our oil and gas reserves. Women, just as their male counterparts, will have to decide in this election whether they will be satisfied with the broad framework Romney is laying out to improve the economy or whether they will vote for the incumbent whose program is to keep printing more money and borrowing the rest from China in an effort to “stimulate” the economy. In the final analysis, for both sexes, this election will be decided by reference to James Carville’s famous line, “It’s all about the economy stupid!” And I have every confidence that women will be just as intelligent on the issue as men.

BENGHAZIGATE: THE SHOCKING (DISGUSTING) TRUTH

Due to the “mainstream” media failing in their obligation to properly report the unfolding scandal of Benghazigate, you may be unaware that Fox News has now confirmed from the CIA station chief on the ground that on the night of the attack at our compound in Benghazi, three requests were made by the two slain former navy seals for assistance during the attack. Requests that were denied. One of the former seal’s request to leave the annex to go to the aid of our ambassador was denied on two occasions. He went anyway, ignoring orders, in an attempt to rescue the ambassador. He was able to save some personnel and get them to the annex but the ambassador had already been killed apparently during the two hours the seal’s requests to go to the ambassador’s aid were denied. When the annex was later attacked, the seal and his fellow former seal, under attack by terrorists using mortars, again asked for help. That request was denied. Both seals were killed by mortar fire, one of them found slumped over a machine gun where he had apparently died trying to defend himself and his fellow Americans. It has also been reported that laser targeting on the mortars had occurred which would have allowed a surgical strike by American aircraft on those targets which might have saved these mens’ lives. At a minimum, one former Lieutenant General has indicated that a fly over by fighter jets would probably have scattered the terrorists and saved the Americans being attacked. Of course, that never occurred. Based on drones and live communications, we now know that the attack was being reported to Washington in real time. And those reports would have been received in the situation room at the White House. During the crisis, it has now been established that our President met with his Veep, the Secretary of Defense and others. Guess what they were talking about. And yet, nothing was done to aid those under attack in Benghazi. In another smear on the sagging reputation of our media, that portion of the President’s interview on Sixty Minutes, right after the attack, in which he acknowledged it was an act of terror, was deleted from the interview which appeared on the air. CBS, after listening for over two weeks to the spin line of the administration that the attack was just a protest that got out of hand based on some anti-Muslim video, finally released that portion of the interview a few days ago. Congress has now scheduled hearings which, conveniently, will occur after November 6. Richard Nixon was forced to resign from the Presidency when it was revealed that he had been aware of the Watergate break in and had attempted to orchestrate a coverup. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Obomba wins re-election and then is forced to resign under similar circumstances?

BENGHAZIGATE, THE SEQUEL

Aside

As the Libya scandal continues to unfold, let’s step back for a moment before we deal with more rhetoric from the Administration and consider what we now know. After attacks on our diplomatic installations in Libya, a death threat to our ambassador and the attempted assassination of the British ambassador, our ambassador and those responsible for his security and the security of our embassy personnel requested more security (duh). The State Department not only denied this request, security was actually lessened. On the day of the attack, until the attack actually began, there were no protestors. In fact, until the actual attack began, when men breached the compound armed with sophisticated weapons, the streets had been deserted. At the time of the attack, a senior State Department official was actually on the phone getting a blow by blow description of the attack. The next day, the head of the CIA briefed congressmen, indicating it was either a terrorist attack or the result of a protest gone bad due to the now infamous anti-Muslim video. Three days later, another senior State Department official testified before Congress that the attack was an attack by terrorists, a position the State Department has never wavered from. Five days after the attack, the U.N. ambassador went on Sunday news programs indicating categorically that it was a protest gone bad based on the video. The Prexy made similar statements. In recent testimony before Congress, two security experts who had been on the scene testified under oath confirming the request for additional security by the ambassador and the State Department’s refusal to honor that request. In the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden, the current veep, indicated in response to a question by the commentator that first, “we” (presumably he meant himself and the President) were unaware of the request for more security and two, their story about the attack being a protest over the video was based on the intelligence they received. In order to accept Biden’s first point, that he and the President didn’t know about the request for more security, it is necessary to accept the premise that no one in the State Department briefed them regarding the request. And that no one in the State Department advised anyone on the White House national security team. If that is the case, then it also means that neither Obama or Biden were concerned enough about the situation in Libya to take the time to find out what was going on there. Although it has been widely reported that Obama does not take foreign affairs briefings in person, preferring to read summaries, it stretches credibility to believe that his written briefings wouldn’t have included some reference to the volatile situation in Libya. And if he was even remotely aware of the dangers there, at a minimum, he was negligent in failing to intervene with his Secretary of State, assuming you accept Biden’s version of the events. On Biden’s second point, it seems clear that the attack was a carefully orchestrated terrorist attack. Even assuming that at least some in the intelligence community were unsure of this, why did the administration take the position that it was not a terrorist attack instead of simply saying they were investigating the matter? Why would the President not investigate himself by following up with the State Department to determine their take on the matter? Why would the President tell the American people that it wasn’t a terrorist attack and send the U.N. ambassador to the media with what we now know and the President should have recognized was a false narrative? And why, when it became increasingly obvious that it was a terrorist attack, would the President continue to spin the video narrative? To add insult to injury, a senior official in the President’s re-election campaign embarrassed herself on national television by claiming that the media attention now being increasingly paid to the scandal is all Rom Mitney’s fault! One of the principles that has guided our foreign policy is that it takes precedence over political considerations. Americans are dead as a result of what could be interpreted as criminal negligence by this Administration in failing to provide adequate security for our personnel in Libya. And despite the veep’s rhetoric, it is obvious that this Administration has insulted those who died and all of us by their pathetic attempts to cover up their sorry role in this tragedy. In the last debate, the Prexy claimed that in his remarks immediately after the attack, he referred to what happened in Benghazi as a terrorist attack. The liberal commentator injected herself into the debate by chastising Romney for claiming otherwise citing the transcript of the President’s remarks. In reality, that transcript showed that after mentioning Benghazi, the President concluded with a general statement about combating terror. And if, as he claimed, he was then acknowledging it was a terrorist attack, why did he proceed to go on his favorite talk shows, as well as appearing before the U.N., claiming that the attack in Benghazi was a result of a protest sparked by the infamous video.

In the final analysis, those “at the top” are responsible for the failings of their employees at least everywhere except apparently Washington D. C. Even with H. Clinton’s pathetic attempt to save the Administration by pointing out the obvious, that as Secretary of State, she is responsible for security, it seems that every time there is a scandal (remember “Fast and Furious?”), the President runs for cover claiming he didn’t know about it even though he finally admitted in the last debate that ultimately he is responsible, a conclusion even he couldn’t spin. And if my friends on the left think that I’m being partisan, if Rom Mitney is elected, he should and will be held to the same standard of accountability.

BENGHAZIGATE

I recently read Robert Kennedy’s book on the Cuban missile crisis. Although many Americans are not aware of it, thanks to the Kennedy brothers, nuclear Armageddon was narrowly avoided. What struck me as I’ve followed the news about the killing of our ambassador in Libya was the role played by Susan Rice, our ambassador to the U.N. You may recall that some five days after the deaths of four Americans in Bengazi, including our ambassador, Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows (even Fox News) and declared that the killings were the result of a protest at our compound in Benghazi that got out of hand and began because of an anti-Muslim video by some weirdo in California. As it turns out, the evidence now shows that it was a well orchestrated terror attack by the usual suspects timed on the anniversary of 911. Most disturbing are the revelations that this Administration knew it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours of its occurrence. The former U.N. ambassador under the last Bush, John Bolton, indicated early on that Rice had to have been spinning an Administration line because U.N. ambassadors don’t operate independently when it comes to such pronouncements. While you may dismiss Bolton’s opinion as partisan, don’t because it’s confirmed if you read Kennedy’s account of how carefully then U.N. ambassador Adlai Stevenson was coached when he appeared before the U.N. to reveal the Russian’s plans to place missiles in Cuba. Rice’s appearance is reminiscent of Colin Powell’s speech before the U.N. claiming Iraq had to be invaded because it was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. At least that debacle was based on an over reaction to limited and faulty intelligence. Here, the intelligence was clear and consistent with what any rational person would conclude had to be a terrorist attack. New evidence reported on CBS now shows that the compound was given a “waiver” from the usual State Department requirements for security and our Ambassador’s pleas for additional security were not only ignored but the State Department actually lessened security for the Ambassador and his staff. Rice was obviously a pawn in an attempt to cover up what really happened in Libya because it doesn’t fit in with this Administration’s campaign rhetoric that with the death of Osama the Bin Laudinum, the war on terror has been won.

VOTERS

With the election looming, it’s interesting to review the range of voters who will soon be casting their ballots. First, we have the “Crazies.” These voters either believe Obomba is the reincarnation of Lenin born on Mars or those who believe Rimney is a corporate raider who kills old ladies as a result of his belief in a cult religion. Then, we have the “Ideologues.” These are voters who can recite with conviction the respective talking points from the left and right but when pressed for details wander off muttering expletives with righteous indignation. When confronted with how they will vote, the “Undecideds” look around, sigh, smile and say, their voices dropping to a whisper, that they are aren’t sure. Their faces redden as they are scowled at, recognizing they’ve been revealed for what they really mean, “Who’s running?” Rampant among young voters, the “Singles” will be voting for the candidate who endorses a particular social issue they agree with, such as abortion or gay rights. As one young interviewee said, after indicating she will vote for the Prexy because he is in favor of gay marriage, on the issue of health care, “I don’t worry about that, my parents pay for my health care.” Finally, we have the “Committed” voters who, ignoring attack ads and the press, actually study the candidates and their respective positions on the issues. Hmm. Which kind of voter will you be?

ROUND ONE

“Good evening ladies and gentlemen, we’re here at ring side in Madison Square Garden for the heavy weight championship of the world. In the blue corner, we have the current reigning champion, President Barracks “Boom Boom” Obomba and his trainer, George Clooney and corner man, Sarah Jessica Parker. Seated behind the champ are all the major media outlets. In the red corner, we have the challenger, Rom Mitney or, I’m having trouble reading this card, Ney Rommit who sits alone with only Fox News sitting behind him. And there’s the bell starting the first round! The champ rises up but the challenger explodes out of his corner and immediately hits the champ with the poverty rate and the unemployment rate, sending the champ reeling against the ropes. The champ attempts to counter with Obomba Care but the challenger easily parries that thrust and delivers a sharp upper cut to the champ’s chin on the deficit and the champ hits the canvas. Clooney rushes out as the champ attempts to stand and–wait, what’s that disturbance at the back of the hall? It looks like, yes, it’s the champ’s sparring partner, Joe Biden. It looks like Biden is going to rush down and actually get in the ring. But wait, someone has grabbed Biden by the arm and is saying something to him. Why it’s Clint Eastwood. Now Biden is running back to his seat, trembling. Let me ask our floor reporter if she got that exchange. Yes? He did? Eastwood told Biden, “Get back to your seat unless you feel lucky. Well, do you feel lucky punk?” Wow, what a fight ladies and gentlemen and it’s only the first round!”

WHO IS REALLY INTOLERANT?

As reported in the Montana Standard, a Muslim living in Wyoming, wrote to a Montana owned ice cream company asking if they used pork in the gelatin used in their ice cream. Okay, legitimate question. The president of the company, admittedly tired after a long day, saw a map of Pakistan on this guy’s Facebook page, assumed he was posting from there and replied, without reading the whole posting, that the company doesn’t ship out of state or to Pakistan. While the answer was disingenuous, it was hardly racist or even particularly provocative. Nevertheless, the guy with the question decided to interpret the response as somehow being offensive to his religion. Worse, some friend of this guy sent a letter to the company calling for a boycott of their ice cream to “stand up to racism, ignorance and intolerance” and copied Montana reporters. Of course, this woman admitted she hadn’t bothered to talk to the prexy of the company who had sent the response. If she’d bothered, she would have heard him say that it was an honest mistake and that he had apologized to the guy on two separate occasions. And then the liberal media got involved with predictable results. After several days, the story was reminiscent of that old game some of us played as kids where you line up and the first person in line whispers something to the next person until the last person reveals what the first person supposedly said, which, of course, bears little resemblance to what was actually said. After several days, a flood of negative comments included a claim that the ice cream company is a “horrible company run by hateful people.” I believe in certain things just as you do. Sometimes, I may agree with you and sometimes I may not. Sometimes you may agree with me and sometimes you may not. As we know (or should), the First Amendment protects our right to express how we feel. And some of us believe that right should be jealously guarded. But while conceding that, we should use the right accorded us to express ourselves in a responsible manner. Unfortunately, there are far too many people wondering around in our society with a chip on their shoulders. They seem to take delight in finding offense at the most trivial real or even imagined slight. They seem to sit back and wait to pounce on any unfortunate person or organization that makes some remark or comment they see as offensive with no regard for the context or intention of the speaker. And most disturbing is their self-righteousness that prevents them from even considering forgivenesswhen it should be due. At a time when we’re struggling with Muslim extremists in the Middle East who are killing us, it is important to remember that like any other diety, Allah preached understanding, peace and forgiveness.