Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Obama Fires Top Admiral For Advocating Libyan Rescue?

According to this report, yesterday (27 October) Obama ordered the immediate removal of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East.
CSG-3 is one of five US Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the US Pacific Fleet. US Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles, which involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore.
The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) is the strike group’s current flagship, and as of 2012, other units assigned to Carrier Strike Group Three include Carrier Air Wing Nine; the guided-missile cruisers USS Mobile Bay (CG-53) and USS Antietam (CG-54); and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 21, the guided-missile destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108), USS Dewey (DDG-105), USS Kidd (DDG-100), and USS Milius (DDG-69).
US news reports on Obama’s unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouette’s removal was for   “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East.   
This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to “assist and provide intelligence for” American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. 
General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders:
“The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready. 
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”


Wow...these Hacks will do anything to kiss Obama's Ass!

So you were suspicious about those September job creation numbers touted by the Obama Administration? You had goodreason to be. 

The payroll data firm ADP, which recently became partners with Moody’s Analytics, revised their estimate of the September jobs created down from 162,000 to 88,200. That new number is considerably less than the Labor Department’s count of 114,000, which included 104,000 from the private sector.
When the Labor Department’s job numbers came out for September, there was an uproar; many observers thought the numbers were manipulated to benefit Barack Obama’s reelection. As Jack Welch, former head of General Electric, tweeted after the Labor Department’s release: "Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can't debate so change numbers."
But the revised ADP numbers have sparked strong suspicion that the October numbers will be worse than the Labor Department will let on. 
Todd Schoenberger, managing principal at the BlackBay Group in New York, said: “It's huge, no doubt about it. Their changing the methodology tells me that if the number is cut in half with that revision, then the revision we're going to see Friday is going to be a disaster."
ADP is taking no chances this time; they will announce their October count on Thursday before the Labor Department announces theirs on Friday. ADP said its new reports will offer a more detailed breakdown of the numbers while they increase the numbers of businesses analyzed.
Excellent comments on link!

Video: Billionaire Who Escaped Socialism Runs Ads Against Socialism

A Real Life story not wanting to Repeat!

Thomas Peterffy is an entrepreneur who fled his native Hungary in 1965 to escape the yoke of Communism.  He moved to America at the age of 21, worked hard, and ultimately earned billions as the head of a successful brokerage firm.  According to his bio, he started a business that today employs thousands of people. With much at stake in the US presidential election, Peterffy is dipping into his personal fortune to warn voters about the dangers of creeping socialism, and to extol the American model of incentivizing hard work and encouraging upward mobility.  It's a powerful message:

"Americans wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success.  Take away their incentive with bad-mouthing success, and you take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy.  Yes, in socialism, the rich will be poorer -- but the poor will also be poorer.  People will lose interest in really working hard and creating jobs.  I think this is a very slippery slope.  It seems like people don't learn from the past.  That's why I'm voting Republican and putting this ad on television."

What's especially remarkable about this campaign is that Peterffy isn't bankrolling a SuperPAC or any political organization to run the spots.  He's not asking people to sign up or donate to his cause.  He's literally cutting personal, out-of-pocket checks to pay for the airtime, straight up.  The ads have been running throughout October on CNN and CNBC.

Obama's Layoff Bomb

In June, a diffident and self-deluded President Obama claimed that "the private sector is doing fine." Last week, the private sector responded: Speak for yourself, buster. Who needs an "October Surprise" when the business headlines are broadcasting the imminent layoff bomb in neon lights?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last Tuesday that employers issued 1,316 "mass layoff actions" (affecting 50 workers or more) in September; more than 122,000 workers were affected overall. USA Today financial reporter Matt Krantz wrote that "(m)uch of the recent layoff activity is connected to what's been the slowest period of earnings growth since the third quarter of 2009." Some necessary restructuring is underway in response to the stagnant European economy. But more and more U.S. businesses are putting the blame -- bravely and squarely -- right where it belongs: on the obstructionist policies and regulatory schemes of the blame-shifter-in-chief.
Last week, Ohio-based auto parts manufacturer Dana Holding Corp. warned employees of potential layoffs amid "looming concern" about the economy. President and CEO Roger Wood specifically mentioned the walloping burden of "increasing taxes on small businesses" and the need to "offset increased costs that are placed on us through new laws and regulations."
Case in point: Obamacare. The mandate will cost Dana Holding Corp., which employs some 24,500 workers, "approximately $24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses." As Ohio Watchdog blogger Maggie Thurber reported, the firm's Toledo area corporate offices laid off seven white-collar employees last Friday; company insiders told her more were on the way. They are not alone.
On Tuesday, Consol Energy issued a federally mandated layoff disclosure announcing its "intent to idle its Miller Creek surface operations near Naugatuck, W.Va." The move will affect the company's Wiley Surface Mine, Wiley Creek Surface Mine, Minway Surface Mine, Minway Preparation Plant and Miller Creek Administration Group, all in Mingo County, W.Va. Despite state approval, cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and myriad other agencies, and a stellar safety record, Obama's EPA dragged its feet on the permit approval process. The impasse has forced layoffs of 145 Consol Energy employees that will hit at the end of the year. They are not alone.

Leaving No One Behind

Remember when Barak Obama had a silver tongue? Was a great orator - maybe so much so that it didn't matter what he said, it just mattered that he was the coolest guy in the room, or on the platform, or in front of adoring crowds in front of some phony Greek columns in Denver?
Remember that, because it's over.
He's not cool. He's not hip. He's not even terribly articulate; the teleprompter has become the butt of jokes people don't want to make about the President himself. But this really couldn't have been an accident, a slip of the tongue, could it? Could the President of the United States really have said in the wake of Hurricane Sandy that "Americans leave nobody behind?" Did he really have the nerve to use the words that soldiers use to reassure themselves that their comrades will do everything they can to support them?
At a Red Cross relief/campaign stop, President Obama told the audience and the video camera that Sandy was tough, but, "America's tougher. And we're tougher because we pull together, we leave nobody behind, we make sure we respond as a nation and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of us stand together to make sure we're providing the help that's necessary."
From the man who left American soldiers on the battlefield.
The President is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. It was bad enough that he and his minions -- Secretary of State ClintonUN Ambassador Susan RicePress Secretary Jay Carney -- all spun a knowing lie about "the video," made a show of asking Google to take it down and had the videographer arrested in the dead of night and clapped into jail. They knew better then and now. But it all pales in comparison to what we now know about the failure of the commander in chief to respond to the call of soldiers in battle -- when the battle started, how long it was running, where the enemy was and what was needed on the ground. Clinton can fall on her sword for him; Defense Secretary Panetta can sit next to the Chairman of the joint chiefs and blame the fog of war; CIA Director Petraeus can say it wasn't his guys who screwed up, but only the President is the President.
The commander in chief added insult to injury (and death) by not only abandoning the soldiers but also appropriating for his own use the source of their greatest comfort.
Next thing you know, he'll be telling them, "I've got your back."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/leaving_no_one_behind.html#ixzz2AvQmRhY5

The Miscalculation of the American Left

This makes you think  about what is happening?

As the 2012 election season winds down to a merciful end, the Obama re-election cabal is in a state of shock and panic at the very real prospect that they and their anointed "messiah" look headed for a monumental defeat.  Such a defeat may well change the political landscape in the United States for many years to come, thanks to Barack Obama.
The American left, the Obama campaign team, the Democratic establishment, and much of the mainstream media are stunned and surprised by the depth of reaction to the exposure of a vapid Barack Obama during the three presidential debates.  Revealed to the world was a man who could not live up to the well-crafted image of one of the most adept, well-liked, and intelligent politicians in American history.  Once deflated, this image could never be rebuilt.  Obama's performance was indicative of an unprepared and unqualified president unable to defend his four years in office or present a cogent plan for the next four.  
Further, the Euro-socialist policies eagerly pursued by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, which in the hallowed halls of academia and liberal think-tanks always succeed, not only have failed miserably to rescue the economy, but are being soundly rejected by the majority of the populace.  They, unlike the insulated elites, are experiencing the real-life consequences of these actions, in a global and domestic landscape of turmoil, indecision, and uncertainty.
As the members of the American left look to the horizon, they are beginning to focus on the very real prospect that what they have strived to achieve over the past fifty-plus years has begun to unravel.  In great part, this is because they chose as the face of the movement someone whose only qualifications were skin color, an ability to read a speech and live up to a celebrity persona, and a studiously ignored youth and young adulthood steeped in 1960s radicalism.  The left relied solely on image rather than substance, and because of racial guilt as well as presenting Barack Obama as a "moderate" bent on hope and change, they succeeded in winning the presidency and control of Congress.
The left had assumed since the president had garnered over 69 million votes in the 2008 election (53% of the votes cast) that the American people had given him and his party a free hand to transform the country.  Never mind that the votes Mr. Obama received accounted for only 30% of the voting-age population in the country, and forget that many voted for him thinking he was the moderate he proclaimed to be during his campaign for president.
It is apparent that the Progressives; their figurehead, Barack Obama; the leaders of the Democratic Party; and the so-called intellectuals on the left  have little or no understanding of why the Euro-socialist utopia they envision will never be accepted by the American people.  Had these elites gotten beyond their own sense of superiority and God-given right to lead, they would have understood that the basic nature of the American society is unlike that of any nation in the world.
Throughout the history of mankind, strong centralized governments have dominated those societies whose makeup was primarily of a single ethnic group and who had little or no history of independence or popular uprisings (e.g., Russia, China, various Arab countries).  So too for modern-day Marxism or socialism -- those nations in today's world living under various manifestations of socialism mostly are similarly formulated.  A docile and willing public is essential for the acceptance of an authoritarian government.
In 1782, a French immigrant to the United States, Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecoeur, in his notable essays, "Letters from an American Farmer," wrote of his newly adopted country:
What then is the American, this new man?  He is either a European or the descendant of a European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country...Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.
The population of the country has increased nearly a hundredfold since those words were first written 230 years ago.  The "new race of men" now includes those from all corners of the world, and their labor and posterity have in fact caused great changes, for the better, in the world.  It has become a source of pride in American families to trace their ancestry and celebrate the courage and determination of their forefathers -- be it that they came on the Mayflower, by steerage to Ellis Island, or through the suffering and perseverance inherent in forced servitude.
These pioneers injected into a uniquely American character a fierce desire to be independent and free, to be the final arbiter of one's success or failure.  There resides deep within the soul of this country a profound mistrust of a powerful central government; this trust stems from the firsthand experience of these immigrants, voluntary and involuntary, from whom virtually all Americans today descend. 
Over the past sixty-seven years, as the United States became the wealthiest and most powerful country on the face of the earth, another trait unique to the American people came to the fore: a genuine sense of generosity and fair play.  All were willing to accept the notion that the individual (and the government to a much smaller degree) should help those in need and give the downtrodden a leg up.  
Unfortunately, this characteristic has been exploited by those on the left who desire to transform the country into a socialist utopia (governed by them, of course).  The stratagem used was to foster guilt for one's success, substitute government for individual charity, and declare as rights those things that only government can insure.  As long as the future of the nation did not appear to be in real jeopardy, and as long as the nation could, on the surface, afford this spending, many simply chose to drop out of active participation in governance, while others, in smaller numbers, chose to accept the largess.  
While far too many have succumbed to a dependence on government largess, this does not mean that the basic character of the American people, as instilled by those Americans' forbears, has changed to become amenable to a massive central government controlling all aspects of their lives while jeopardizing the futures of their children and grandchildren.
The Obama administration and the Democratic Party have, by unbridled spending and headlong drive to control the day-to-day activities of all Americans, at last awakened those who chose to sit on the sidelines and merely observe while assuming that the country was too big and rich to fail.  
Now, even many of the least involved citizens have begun to realize that the nation has embarked on a path that will bankrupt the country.   It is now apparent to a majority that the survival of a great nation depends in its ability to remain master of its destiny and that that capability is now in question.
In this election, the people are rising to the challenge of overcoming what the left has attempted to achieve over the past fifty years.  This is something never anticipated by them, Barack Obama, and the Democrats.  The legacy left to Americans by their forbears will not be betrayed; it is, after all, who we are.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_miscalculation_of_the_american_left.html#ixzz2AvQR5Zgt

It's Not Over

Someone sent me this........... FYI only..

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.
What happens when the bubble bursts?
When reality ensues on November 7 -- who knows how he will react?  Being a god is great as long as people believe, but once they do not, you become a mere mortal.  Will Obama accept that?
Once the curtain was pulled back, the Wizard of Oz was forevermore just a man.
For Barack, the yellow brick road leads out of the White House.  And, having spent the last half-decade studying the man, I'm not convinced that he will willingly follow that path.  I want to believe he will.  But I am not so sure. 
Barack Obama will lose this election in a landslide, but that will almost certainly not be the end of it.
Voting is more important now than ever for those who wish to preserve the union -- the larger the landslide and the bigger his margin of loss, the harder it will be for Barack Obama to pretend the nation still wants him.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/its_not_over.html#ixzz2AvPCeiTt

A few more Facebook post....

I don't hate but this Woman can fall in that category for me! She is an Idiot!

Leave no one????

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Romney Camp Says They Don't Make Hats In China

This photo comparing a Romney cap made in China and an Obama cap made in the U.S. is going viral online.

This photo comparing a Romney cap made in China and an Obama cap made in the U.S. is going viral online.
Source: facebook.com

Except Andrea Saul, a spokesperson for the Romney campaign, told BuzzFeed all of its merchandise is made in the U.S.

Except Andrea Saul, a spokesperson for the Romney campaign, told BuzzFeed all of its merchandise is made in the U.S.

And the tags on their hats are actually like this.

And the tags on their hats are actually like this.

The Romney campaign website doesn't even have tan hats for sale right now. So the image could either be a total fake or a hat made by an outside group.

The Romney campaign website doesn't even have tan hats for sale right now. So the image could either be a total fake or a hat made by an outside group.

Media Debate Fail: Obama, the Auto Bailout and China Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2012/10/23/media-debate-fail-obama-auto-bailout-and-china#ixzz2ApiG5UOQ

In their third Presidential debate analysis, the Jurassic Press Media last night and thus far this morning have failed utterly in their role as fact checker and record-corrector - at least when it comes to what President Barack Obama had to say. 
As but one glaring example, there were the President’s absurd assertions regarding the auto bailout and China.
Here in large part is what the President last night had to say on the subject:
“If we had taken your advice Governor Romney about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.
“If we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax codes so that companies that earn profits overseas don't pay U.S. taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes. Now that's estimated to create 800,000 jobs, the problem is they won't be here, they'll be in places like China.”
This is not the first time the President has made these claims.  It is not the first time the Press has taken him - utterly unexamined - at his word. 
We won’t.  Let’s go piece by Presidential piece, and see what we find.
“If we had taken your advice Governor Romney about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.
There is so much wrong-ness packed into this one sentence. 
Governor Romney’s auto industry advice was to have General Motors (GM) and Chrysler file for bankruptcy.  Like President Obama has done with swaths of predecessor President George W. Bush’s foreign policy, he criticizes it - while emulating it. 
Guantanamo Bay is still open - just as President Bush advised.  And President Obama took GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy - just as Governor Romney advised.
Only Romney wanted to do it without $85 billion of our money dumped down the United Auto Worker union rat hole.  GM and Chrysler could - and should - have gone bankrupt for free.
As for who’s buying cars from whom, let’s go to the videotape.  Obama-appointee GM CEO Dan Akerson gave a speech in Shanghai, China where he proudly proclaimed:
“Seven out of ten of our vehicles were made outside the United States.”
Many, many of those cars are made in China - which is why Akerson was saying it there.  In fact, nearly two-thirds of GM jobs are in other countries - again, many, many of them in China.  From GM’s 2011 annual report:
“We will continue to grow our business under the Baojin, Jiefang, and Wuling brands. We operate in Chinese markets through a number of joint ventures and maintaining good relations with our joint venture partners, which are affiliated with the Chinese government, is an important part of our Chinese growth strategy.”
And those Chinese Communist government “joint venture partners?”  One of those joint ventures was GM being the chief sponsor of the celebratory flick “Chinese Communism at 90 - Hooray.”  (That is a rough title translation - my Mandarin is weak.) 
Good thing President Obama separated us from our $85 billion - allegedly to “create or save” jobs.  Mostly foreign jobs, but.... And as we’ve seen with Ford, no government bailout money was necessary to preserve a gi-normous member of the American auto industry.
More of the President from last night:
“If we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax codes so that companies that earn profits overseas don't pay U.S. taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes. Now that's estimated to create 800,000 jobs, the problem is they won't be here, they'll be in places like China.”
President Obama illegally allowed GM to carry forward through the bankruptcy $45.4 billion in losses - which serve as post-bankruptcy write-offs, costing We the Taxpayers $18 billion in lost tax revenue.  GM paid absolutely no income tax in 2011
So GM earning profits - domestically or overseas - isn’t paying any U.S. taxes.  That was President Obama’s illegal, illegally imposed advice - not Governor Romney’s.
At no point last night did debate moderator Bob Schieffer insert himself to correct President Obama on any of this - as last debate moderator Candy Crowley was only too happy to incorrectly do in defense of the President. 
At no point since has anyone in the Press done anything to correct President Obama and the auto bailout record. 
Shocking, I know.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2012/10/23/media-debate-fail-obama-auto-bailout-and-china#ixzz2ApiLtLyZ