Does anyone reading this have the slightest confidence that Republicans will be able to negotiate a reasonable deal with Democrats to avoid the fiscal cliff?  I didn’t think so.  The problem is that President Obama has drawn a line in the sand and doesn’t see a need to negotiate.  He thinks he has the winning hand and if Republicans negotiate like they have in the past, he will be right.

Republicans need to make much better arguments.  They are now trying to win the public debate by saying they don’t want to raise taxes on the rich because they don’t want to increase taxes on anyone.  Then, to double down on disaster, they are demanding that the President agree to cutting Medicare and Social Security.  This is exactly the position the Democrats want them to take because it fits beautifully with the Democratic playbook.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  This strategy is not working, it has never worked and it never will work.

Republicans should propose a return to the “CLINTON TAX RATES” for everyone.  They should argue that since the economy was so great during the Clinton years and since the Bush tax cuts caused all our problems, let’s just let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Let me be clear.  Raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea, particularly in this economy.  Raising taxes just encourages more spending by the government.  But taxes are going up, that is clearly inevitable.  They will either go up because the Republicans cut a stupid deal or they will go up because the Bush tax cuts expire.  The absolute worst thing Republican can do is this silly plan to pretend not to raise taxes by keeping rates the same but just reduce or eliminate deductions for things like charitable contributions and mortgage interest.

The worst case scenario, for everyone but Democrats and President Obama, is to just raise taxes on higher incomes.  It won’t raise nearly enough money to balance the budget.  It has the potential to push us into a recession or even a depression and Democrats will continue to play the class warfare card.  If taxes have to go up, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a better alternative than just increasing taxes on high wage earners.  One of the biggest problems we have today is that nearly half of wage earners don’t pay any income tax at all.  It is impossible to get people excited about out of control spending by the federal government if they aren’t contributing to the cost. 

Repealing the Bush tax cuts would be an enormous hit to the pocket book of low wage earners and the middle class, but perhaps that is the only way to ever generate the political will to cut spending.  Letting the Bush tax cuts will be painful, but not as painful as it will be to fix this problem further down the path to destruction.

So, call President Obama’s bluff and start recommending a return to Clinton Economics.  That starts with the CLINTON TAX RATES;  ALL THE CLINTON TAX RATES.  Keep repeating the CLINTON TAX RATES about every 30 seconds.  When ever anyone says that this will be a huge tax incresae on the lower wage earners and the middle class, look puzzled.  Ask how this is possible, when everyone did so well when the same tax rates were in effect during the Clinton administration.  “Didn’t the Bush tax cuts give the majority of the tax cuts to high wage earners?  Agree that the rich need to pay more, but wouldn’t fairness demand that everyone should pay something?  Remind everyone that this is just a return to the CLINTON TAX RATES.  Take the term Bush tax cuts out of our vocabulary and replace it with the CLINTON TAX RATES.

In addition, point out that raising taxes on the rich does not generate encough income.  It is Obama who insists that increased revenue is the only path to economic prosperity.  Agree with President Obama about increasing revenue, just point out that just raising taxes on the rich is not enough.

Instead of proposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security, point out that Obama has already done that.  He cut $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare and under President Obama there was no cost of living increase for Social Security recipients in 2009 and 2010, the first time since 1975.  Point out that it is President Obama who is cutting benefits for current participants and it is Republicans who are trying to save Medicare and Social Security for current recipients.  We need to let seniors know that Obamacare is a devastating assault on Medicare for current seniors.

Republicans can easily win this argument.  The facts are there.  The following article, from Time magazine designed to prove that Obama didn’t  cut Medicare actually makes the case for Republicans:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/

This article admits that Obama already cut Medicare by eliminating the subsidy for medicare advantage plans.  It is important to note that 1/3 of seniors currently have a medicare advantage plan.  Republicans need to point out that if nothing is changed, medicare advantage plans will disappear and ALL SENIORS WILL NEED TO RELY ON HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO ACCEPT MEDICARE. 

This article also admits that these cuts to Medicare are reducing reimbursements to health care providers and that some health care providers will stop providing services.  So, when your medicare advantage plan disappears good luck in finding a doctor willing to take on new patients.  If seniors understand what Obamacare is actually going to do to them they will be outraged!

Also point out that Obama’s plan calls for even further cuts to medicare reimbursement.  This is explained very well in the same article:

The “Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts.”

Let me translate if (when) Medicare costs go up, Obama already plans to cut reimbursements to Medicare providers.  We will all get free medicare treatment, there just won’t be any health care providers available to provide it.  Obamacare trades free annual exams for people who aren’t actually sick by severely cutting benefits for those who desperately need treatment.  If you don’t believe me, take a look at what is happening in the Great Britain today.

Republicans can win this argument by pointing out the truth.  Obama has already cut Medicare for current seniors and Obamacare provisions will cut them even more.  Republicans must pont out the need to reform Medicare and Social Security to “SAVE SENIORS FROM THE DEVASTATING CUTS ALREADY MADE BY OBAMA.”

If Republicans cannot figure this out, the next best option would be to have them do absolutely nothing.  The worst scenario is a bad deal.  No deal is better than a bad deal.

TDM

Sometimes it is fun watching Democrats do something really stupid.  Several people on the left are now accusing Republican Senators McCain and Graham of being racist for expressing opposition to Susan Rice as Secretary of State.  They are demanding that Republicans drop their opposition to Rice and they are putting pressure on President Obama to nominate her to be the next Secretary of State.  But in their haste to play the race card they missed something really important.  If Obama nominates Susan Rice to any cabinet position, she will have to undergo public Senate confirmation hearings where she will have to testify under oath.  That would create a huge problem for both Sussan Rice and President Obama because what Susan Rice said isn’t even in the vicinity of truth.   That is why she met, behind closed doors, with those Republican Senators:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/gop-senators-susan-rice_n_2198255.html?1354035161&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D238529he

Those people pushing President Obama to nominate her anyway better hope he doesn’t listen.

Sir Walter Scott:  “Oh what a tangle web we weave when we practice to deceive.”

TDM

Galations  6:  7-9.  Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

A lot of people are celebrating the re-election of Barack Obama.  I sometimes wonder if they realize the fruits of this victory?  Whenever I talk to someone who admits to voting for Obama, I ask them one simple question:  “How do you personally expect to benefit from the re-election of President Obama.”   The answers have been interesting.  Many have told me that they voted for Obama because they didn’t want to see any cuts to Medicare or Social Security.  When I point out that Social Security has already been cut, they don’t believe me.  But the following chart proves that Social Security benefits were already cut under President Obama:  

In 2009, for the first time since at least 1975, seniors did not get a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) adjusting benefits for inflation.  They also didn’t get a COLA in 2010.  Medicare premiums also increased for about a quarter of participants.  When costs go up, but your income doesn’t, that sure looks like a cut to me! 

If a Republican president was in office the main stream media would have screamed to high heaven.  Instead they tried to explain this away by blaming fluctuating oil prices.  Well, regardless of who or what is to blame, the simple fact is that Social Security Benefits were cut during President Obama’s first two years and that NEVER happened during a Republican administration.

President Obama also cut funding for Medicare to help fund Obamacare.  Following is a link to a story in Time.com that claims to dispute this inconvenient fact:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/

But like far too many “fact check stories” in the main stream media, this is pure Democratic spin.  First, the article admits that Obamacare did cut $716 trillion from Medicare:

First, the context. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare spending over the next 10 years will be about $7.5 trillion. This means the ACA’s Medicare cuts account for less than 10% of overall Medicare spending. The program is not being gutted. Even with the ACA cuts, the CBO says the cost of Medicare is expected to grow from about $500 billion in 2012 to nearly $900 billion by 2022

They just claim it is not a cut because it is less than 10% and Medicare is expected to grow anyway.   If a Republican president tried this kind of tortured logic the main stream media would have gone bizerk.

Then the article goes on to explain just how Medicare was cut:

Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage.

Let me translate, the one quarter of people receiving benefits from Medicare Advantage are about to get screwed.  Don’t be surprised to see many Medicare Advantage plans disappear.

The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past.

Let me translate.  They are not going to cut benefits, they are just going to cut the amount they pay for treatment:

Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts. If Congress can’t find alternative ways to keep Medicare spending growth under the inflation or GDP benchmark, the IPAB recommendations will automatically go into effect. This too could reduce access. Bonus Medicare Advantage benefits – like free gym memberships – may go away

In other words, if (when) they run out of money the cuts will be even more severe!

The summary of this article says it all:

The idea, however, that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways is untrue. Under the new law, Medicare will remain a wildly popular, public single-payer health insurance system that provides comprehensive coverage to millions of Americans.

Trust me on this, the coming cuts to Medicare will seem very major to those of us who depend on it. 

In addition, the sad reality is that this administration doesn’t have a clue how to administer Obamacare.  They don’t even know how to set up the insurance exchanges which are supposed to start enrolling people in October of 2013.  In the meantime, the insurance industry, particularly the independent agents who could help pull this off, have been demonized and shoved aside. 

Note:  While I have a license to sell health insurance, I never bothered to sell individual health policies because it was too much work and too little income.  Since Obamacare was passed the insurance companies have cut commissions even more and the paper work increased exponentially.  In addition the whole purpose of the health insurance exchanges is to get rid of agents.  I personally know a bunch of agents who just gave up and found other employment.  I can pretty much guarantee this is going to be one huge expensive mess.

All of you who are currently enrolled in Medicare understand what is coming.  You are about to get a phone book size package of incomprehensible jibberish to help you make your health care decisions.  In the attempt to explain everything these will explain nothing.  A well trained insurance broker was a God send.  Wasn’t it nice to find someone who could translate this into plain English and help you understand your options?  Well kiss the agent goodbye and be prepared to call one of these great health care exchanges.  Don’t forget to press one for English.

President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi got their wish to transform health care in the United States.  Those people who voted to put them in power are about to reap the results.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

TDM

The Libya incident may have morphed into a far more serious investigation.  The main stream media ignored the obvious cover-up of the Libya incident by the Obama administration.  They are still ignoring the issue regarding the lack of security at our consulate in Libya and they are still yawning about the Susan Rice ‘let’s lie about everything act.”  But, it turns out that the sudden resignation of General David Petraeus has added a whole new element.  This added a little sex and suddenly the main stream media is actually doing some investigation.  The following report from the Washington Post is extremely important:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/probe-eyes-petraeus-staffs-possible-role-in-broadwell-obtaining-sensitive-documents/2012/11/21/c6b63230-3408-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

It is clear that General Petraeus did give classified information to Broadwell:

“Broadwell turned over her computer to the FBI in late summer, and agents discovered that it contained low-level classified material. On Nov. 12, the FBI searched her home in Charlotte and carried away additional evidence that she had classified documents, law enforcement officials said.”

This means the FBI knew there were national security implications last summer.  It looks like the FBI and the Department of Justice were willing to ignore a very serious breech of security, as long as General Petraeus was a good boy.  There were no new developments that suddenly created an urgent need to have Petraeus resign, other than the fact that he was about to testify before congress.  Suddenly, he had to go.  Even the Washington Post, long used to holding it’s nose at scandals involving the Obama administration can no longer ignore the odor.

The point is that the hunt is on.  These stories don’t develop over night.  They develop when serious investigators start peeling back the onion.  It took a long time for Watergate to develop.  But what happened is that once people started looking, they kept finding more and more interesting things.  If the Obama administration has conducted a systemic cover-up of Fast & Furious and the Libya fiasco it cannot survive this kind of sustained investigation.   So far Obama has responded to any hint of investigation of anything with arrogance and anger.  How dare you investigate me is the standard Obama response.  That worked for along time, but it isn’t working this time.

In the meantime, it is interesting to watch as the squirm turns. 

TDM

The Obama administration is trying desperately to prevent a full investigation of the Libya cover-up.   It is no longer possible to pretend that there was no cover-up.  General Petraeus skewered that theory when he said that the talking points provided by the CIA were altered before they were given to Susan Rice.

Now there is a story in CBS, from annonymous sources, blaming unidentified people at the DNI:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-cia-fbi-signed-off/

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence.

This, of course, is nonsense.  I will repeat what I wrote in my blog on November 16th:

“Let me summarize the Obama administration official explanation for lying:  ‘We didn’t want the group that confessed to attacking our Consulate to realize that we suspected them of attacking our Consulate.'” 

This is an act of desperation by the Obama administration.   They are trying to pretend that the White House had no input with regard to this false narrative.  But who else would have a motive to change this?  It is time to ask two very simple questions.  Who benefited from the theory that this was just a spontaneous response to a bad video.  Who worked hardest to promote this version of events.

President Obama answered both questions during his press conference.  He said that the White House asked Susan Rice to go on those Sunday morning news programs and that it was unfair to criticize her because she delivered the message she was asked to deliver.  That is an admission that the White House felt it benefited from convincing the American people that this was just the spontaneous response to the video.  It is also an admission that it was the White House that was strongly promoting this version of events.

In any crime, if you are look for a suspect, start by looking for a motive.  The most important thing to remember when watching replays of Susan Rice telling those bald-face lies is that it speaks to motive.  The other person actively promoting this version of events was White House Spokeman Jay Carney.  Seems pretty obvious.

TDM

Twenty five years ago, Dan White murdered San Francisco Mayor Wilie Moscone and gay Supervisor Harvey Milk.  He escaped with a conviction for involuntary manslaughter when his attorney pulled out the famous “Twinkie Defense.”  Actually, Twinkies were barely mentioned, Dan White was more into HoHos and Ding Dongs, but most people only remember the Twinkies.  This case was far more complex than that, but the point is that a very good defense attorney did manage to convince a jury that Dan White was suffering from diminished capacity.

Since Dan White had been caught in the act by none less than Diane Feinstein and since he confessed to shooting both men, a creative defense was a high priority.  The motive for the case was pretty obvious, because Mayor Moscone had refused to re-appoint Dan White as a Supervisor, partly because of opposition from Harvey Milk.  Most legal experts at the time didn’t think Dan White had a chance of avoiding a first degree murder conviction.   Frankly, I suspect that his own legal counsel were probably somewhat shocked that this defense strategy actually worked.

President Obama has a major problem with the Libya narrative.  It has been obvious for some time that Susan Rice was sent out there to tell a bald-faced lie.  Even the White House has given up trying to pretend that the over-reaction to a bad video theory has any merit. Now, they are focused on avoiding the blame.

The current strategy seems to be concentrated on blaming the CIA for providing bad intelligence.  But there is a problem.  General Petraeus was forced to resign because of this sex scandal and he doesn’t appear to be overly enthusiastic about falling on his sword even further.  He has already told congress, in a closed sesson, that he knew this was a terrorist attack from the start.  Then he added that the talking points provided by the CIA were altered, but not by the CIA.    This is so bad that Senator Liberman even tried to save the White House by saying we should be focused on the lack of security at the Consulate and the failure to provide miltary assistance, rather than concentrating on the obvious cover-up.  Those are really good topics for the White House!

But wait.  Perhaps Susan Rice was addicted to the sugar high from Twinkies.  This is a high stress job and who could blame her for needing some extra energy.  Then to top things off, she learned that the evil rich guys running the company were threatening to stop making twinkies forever if the union insisted on a continued strike.  That’s it.  Susan Rice is innocent.  She was suffering from diminished capacity as the result of a sudden and potentially permant Twinkie withdrawal.

Granted this is a little thin, but it make more sense than their current theory.

TDM

General Petraeus and the White House are desperately trying to walk back the deliberate misrepresentations regarding Libya.  Democrats appear to be following the Hillary Clinton tradition of the “willing suspension of disbelief.”  Hillary should know all about that, because when General Petraeus said the surge in Iraq was working, because the surge in Iraq was working, Hillary said she didn’t believe him because that would require the “willing suspension of disbelief.”

Now General Petraeus is trying to pretend that in the briefing he gave congress on September 13^th he reported that this was a terrorist attack.  If so, everyone misunderstood him, because several people who attended that briefing spoke to the press and they reported that Petraeus said it was caused by the video.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/david_petraeus_briefs_lawmakers_on_mideast_developments-217589-1.html

Now Petraeus is saying he never thought it had anything to do with the video, but the CIA went along with the lie because they didn’t want Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaida to know we were on to them.

“The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus’ private briefings.”

Give me a break.  Within two hours the State Department sent out an e-mail specifically mentioning that the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack and called for additional terrorist attacks.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/emails-white-house-informed-within-two-hours-of-benghazi-attack-that-radical-islamic-group-claimed-responsibility/

Let me summarize the Obama administration official explanation for lying:  “We didn’t want the group that confessed to attacking our Consulate to realize that we suspected them of attacking our Consulate.” 

This would be funny, if it wasn’t so terribly sad.  How many bald-faced lies are we going to be told before some Democrat has had enough?

TDM

The whole Libya situation remains confusing, but we know several things for sure.  They are enough to justify calling this “Libyagate.”   They are enough to move Obama into “Select” company.

1. General Petraeus said that the CIA knew this was a terrorist attack from the start.
2. General Petraeus was asked to down play the terrorism aspect during his presentation to congress on September 14.
3. Petraeus said that the talking points provided by the CIA to the White House were altered from the talking points used by Susan Rice on September 16.
4. Susan Rice appeared at the request of the White House and she relied on talking points given her by the White House.
5. Her statements were a deliberate attempt to mislead the American public into thinking this was only  the spontaneous response to an obscure video.

President Obama, at his news conference, said the following:

“she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.”

“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and other want to go after someone, they should go after me.”

This is one time when people should definitely follow Obama’s advice.  The only real questions are:

1. Who made the decision to cover-up the truth?
2. What was the motive for the cover-up?
3. Who made the deliberate alternations to the talking points given to Susan Rice?
4. Who made the decision to ask Susan Rice to go on national TV and lie?

The sad reality is that much of the main stream media is, once again, more than willing to give President Obama a pass on this.  They don’t dispute any of the facts, they just don’t care.  It is incredible watching the folks at CNN try to explain why this doesn’t matter.

But it does matter.  It does matter when the White House deliberately misleads the American people.  How can we possibly believe ANYTHING this administration says on any subject?  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.  This time it is not just about sex, it is about national security.  It is also about a terrorist attack.  Or, if you follow this administration’s reasoning, it is about a criminal act, a murder.

It is a felony to cover-up a crime.  That is why Richard Nixon was forced to resign and that was only about the botched up third-rate burglary attempt at the DNC headquarters.  This is about the death of a U.S. Ambassador.  Covering up who was responsible for a crime, is a crime.  It is obstruction of justice.

Democrats are also trying to claim that Condoleezza Rice lied about the WMD in Iraq.  That is beyond absurd.  Everything Condoleezza Rice said during the run up to the Iraq War was investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and they found no instance where she said anything that was inconsistent with the intelligence.  In addition, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller, along will a ton of other top Democrats were saying similar things based on the same intelligence.

My answer to Democrats is that if Condoleezza Rice deliberate lied, then she should have been held accountable.  The proper response to these outrageous claims is to demand evidence.  Condoleezza Rice wasn’t held accountable for lying because there is no evidence that she lied about anything.  This is why the liberal media still hyperventilates about the Valerie Plame case.  Bush’s statement about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake uranium is the closest thing the liberal left has ever found that they can even argue was a lie.  But, subsequent investigation proved that it was Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame’s husband who was lying and that everything Bush said was subsequently proven to be accurate.

President Obama has now moved into select company.  Congress should immediately demand a Special Prosecutor and they should demand a Select Committee.  Democrats will strongly resist both requests, just as they have strongly resisted any effort to investigate this administration.  This will only change if the American people rise up in righteous indignation and demand answers.  The main stream media will not do their job, but the main stream media is no longer the only source of information for the American people.  If the enough people rise up and demand answers, we will get answers.  Otherwise we will just get four more years of the same.

TDM

The proverb, “For Want of a Nail” has been around for a long time.  Some people associate this with Waterloo, but it may date back to the 14^th century.  It is still true today.

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

We may be seeing the modern version of this proverb in the bizarre story of General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell.

The whole situation in Libya never made sense.  Regardless of how anyone feels about President Obama, it is hard to imagine any White House reluctant to send in a military response to protect a U.S. Consulate under siege.  Then, after reviewing the timelines   I realized that by the time the White House was up to speed, there was no one left alive at the Consulate.  The CIA team from the Annex had rescued all the survivors and had brought them back to the Annex.  All of the fighting, from that time on, was at the CIA Annex.

So then I asked why the White House might be reluctant to send in our military to “save” the CIA Annex.  It turns out they may have had two very good reasons for that decision.  For one thing, it appears as though we didn’t exactly have permission from the Libyan Government to be there.  It would be easy for President Obama to justify sending in troops to save a U.S. Consulate.  It would not be easy to explain sending them in to save a secret, possibly illegal, CIA complex.  But what if this was a secret detention center, run by the CIA.  President Obama made a big show in 2009 of issuing an executive order forbidding these type of operations.  Perhaps they didn’t want to send in the Special Forces because they didn’t want them to know what was there.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.  Paula Broadwell, the woman who allegedly had the affair with General Petraeus, made some remarkable comments about Libya during an October 26 speech to the University of Denver.   It is clear that while General Petraeus was not talking to the press, he may have been talking to her.  This is beyond staggering:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/12/paula-broadwell-benghazi-attack-petraeus/1699207/

Following is a transcript of the remarks by Paula Broadwell about Libya contained in this video:

“But the challenge has been the fog of war. And the greater challenge is that it’s political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will.

But the facts that came out today were that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.

They were requesting the, what’s called the CINC’s in extremis force — a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex that were under attack.

Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

She drops three major bombs:

First, she says that the CIA personnel at the annex requested reinforcements from the “CINC’s In Extremis Force.”  She describes this unit as being composed of Delta Force personnel.  She said they could have come in and reinforced the Consulate and the CIA Annex.

Second, she asks the audience if a lot of them know about the Libya Militia prisoners being held at the CIA Annex.

Third, she says General Petraeus knew all this, but he was not allowed to talk to the press because of his new position as Director of the CIA.

It has been obvious from day one that the Obama administration was covering up something.  The Obama administration’s narrative on Libya didn’t even pass the snicker test.  It is one thing to lie.  It is another thing to tell such an obvious and stupid lie.  One had to ask why?

I went back and looked at the broadcast by Jennifer Griffin, October 26, 2012 on Fox News.  Jennifer Griffin said that during the attack the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers but were forced to hand them over to the Libyans.  Jennifer Griffin also brought up the Commanders In Extremis force.  Perhaps Ms. Broadwell had listened to Jennifer Griffin’s broadcast and she was just confused.  But, she seemed very clear in her comments that the prisoners in question were the motive for the attack, not just people who had been captured during the attack.

There are other, unconfirmed, reports indicating that this might have been a secret CIA prison:

Note the following excerpt from this article at Breitbart.com:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/12/New-Report-CIA-s-Benghazi-Annex-Was-a-Detention-and-Interrogation-Site

Unnamed sources tell Fox News that the CIA Annex in Benghazi held three Libyan militia members for days and that retrieving these detainees may have been a motive for the September 11th attack on the nearby US consulate.

Speaking on Fox News Monday, Griffin indicated new sources suggest the CIA annex may have been a detention site for local militia forces and even for some prisoners from other parts of Africa.

There are also reports that the CIA was preparing to shut this facility down.  That would make sense, because the situation in Libya was rapidly deteriorating.

Jennifer Griffin is a brilliant investigative reporter and even the main stream media pays close attention to her.  This is starting to make sense.  Why would you send in the “Calvary” to rescue a secret CIA station you were preparing to shut down?  It would hardly be the first time a U.S. Government abandoned CIA operatives to fend for themselves.

The problem here is that the Director of the CIA made a huge mistake with regard to his personal life and his out of control mistress may have spilled the beans.  The question is whether or not the real story will ever be told, at least in public.  There is already a bi-partisan demand for answers.  At a minimum, people like Senator Diane Feinstein are not amused at being kept out of the loop.  The next battle will be a desperate attempt by the Obama administration to have closed door hearings.  If they succeed, it may be a long time before the American public learns the truth.

It is impossible to predict all of the potential developments with regard to this story.  Who among us would have anticipated the resignation of General Petraeus within hours after Obama was re-elected.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if the entire Libyan narrative unraveled because the mistress of the CIA Director couldn’t resist sending e-mails to a woman she viewed as a rival for the attention of the man she loved?  “For Want of a Nail.”

TDM

A lot of us watched TV Tuesday night, earnestly praying that Mitt Romney would be elected President of the United States.  We watched in vain.  The die was cast before the first vote was cast last Tuesday.  A majority of the people who voted on November 6, 2012, almost certainly voted to elect Mitt Romney.  We definitely know that he won 59% of the white vote.  This was almost a replay of 2008.   Once again, Democrats out hustled Republicans with a massive early voting campaign specifically designed to get minority voters registered and to make sure they voted.  Then they worked to get minorities to vote on Election Day.  It worked brilliantly.  95% of blacks voted for Obama; so did 75% of Hispanics.

The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem.  There are two problems:  1.  Black voters seem to just automatically vote for the Democratic candidate.  Hispanic voters are a little more flexible, but in this election they also voted in lock step.  2.  All of the early voting, absentee voting and massive voter registration activities cast serious questions on the integrity of the election itself.  This situation is a recipe for voter fraud.

In a democracy, it is impossible for any president, no matter how popular, to get much more than 60% of the vote in a fair and honest election.  The highest vote total by any president was James Madison, who received 64.7% of the vote.  In recent history, the following presidents won more than 55% of the vote:

Lyndon Johnson 61.1%

Franklin D. Roosevelt 60.8%

Richard Nixon    60.7%

Warren Harding 60.3%

Ronald Reagan   58.8%

Theodore Roosevelt   56.4%

The point is that when there is a secret ballot, and people have true freedom to choose, it is impossible to get a really high percentage of the vote.  This has nothing to do with race.  One can assume that most of the people living in places like South Korea are Korean.  They don’t vote in lock-step for anyone, if they have a freedom of choice.  There are places where we see such winning margins.  These are places with a single-party system.  There are also places like North Korea.  When you see anyone getting more than 65% of the vote, anywhere, anytime, you know that the voters did not have a true freedom of choice.

What really happened in this election is that the Democratic machine took over the minority voting blocks.  Regardless of whether you think their tactics were legal or not, ethical or not, they worked to an extent that is impossible in a truly fair and honest election.  We now have a situation where the outcomes of national elections are predetermined by a small percentage of the total voters because these people vote in lock-step.  Quite simply, the outcomes of the last two presidential elections were determined almost entirely by the black and Hispanic vote, which voted as a single voting bloc.  If you discount the bloc voting by minorities, John McCain won easily in 2008, and Mitt Romney won easily in 2012.

This explains why Democrats are fighting so hard against voter ID.  It also explains the desperation to preserve early voting with no restrictions.  It is the primary source of their political power.

Suppose you are a minority, living in a depressed area.  You may not even speak English.  A local representative of the Democratic Party shows up in your living room.  He or she smiles a lot and they speak your language.  They help you register to vote.  They help you get your absentee ballot and then help you answer the questions.  Then they graciously offer to put it in the mail for you or perhaps even drop it off in person.  This is happening in minority communities all over the country.  It is clearly working.  You don’t achieve a 75% or even a 95% margin for your candidate by accident.  You certainly do not achieve that by having a fair and honest election.

We must take action now to fix this problem.  We must start by alerting people to the problem and demanding voter ID laws.  We must also demand a return to the secret ballot, with one caveat–the ballot cannot be so secret that we have no way of verifying that it is legitimate.  A court case reported by the Denver Post explains the problem:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21601455/federal-judge-says-no-constitutional-right-secret-ballot

Democratic activists are working overtime to make it impossible to hold a free election in this country.  They are doing this under the cover of eliminating voter suppression.  If they succeed, your vote next time will matter even less.

There is bi-partisan support for this, and we must fix this problem before it is too late.  Voter-ID laws have strong support from Democrats as well as Republicans.  We must demand that systems be put into place to verify that voters are legal, that they are properly identified, that the secrecy of their ballot is preserved and that they only vote once.  We must be flexible enough to prove to the courts that we are not discriminating against the ability of legal minorities to vote in elections, but we must be absolutely firm in requiring a system that preserves our most precious freedom–the right to vote.  We must demand a return to free and honest elections.

If we do that, based on historical records, it will be impossible for any political party to achieve this type of lock-step voting in the future.

We must also reach out to the minority communities and tell them the truth about how Democratic policies are devastating minorities.  Democrats talk a good game about looking out for the little guy, but they have been throwing money left and right to defeat poverty in this country since 1964, and it has never worked.  It is worse today than when Lyndon Johnson started the war on poverty. When in doubt, always start with the cold hard truth.

We must also send a strong message to the white community.  If we do not fix this problem, the white community will no longer have any voice in future national elections.  The only alternative to a sustained situation where minorities are dominating elections by voting as a block is for white voters to vote as a block.  That, of course, would be unacceptable.  That would be racism.  There was a time in this country when white voters, at least in the South, did exactly that.  We do not want to return to those days under any circumstances.  But the harsh reality is that the last two presidential elections were won almost entirely by racial politics.  Barack Obama did not hesitate to tell black people they must vote for him because he is black.  He also did not hesitate to tell Hispanic voters to vote for him because all white voters are racist.  He did much more than that.  Democratic activists descended on minority communities in mass to make sure people voted their way.  They told lies about George Bush letting people die after Hurricane Katrina because they were black.  The Democratic Party is once again the party of racism.

There is hard evidence that white voters are not racist.  Even when minorities were voting in lock step for Barack Obama, 39% of white voters still voted for Obama.  When you think about it, Barack Obama got almost exactly the percentage of white votes one would expect a losing candidate to get from any voting demographic.  Mitt Romney got 58% of the white vote, also just about what one would expect for a winning candidate.

The lesson to Republicans is very simple:  we don’t have swing states.  What we have is voting blocs that don’t swing at all.  If Democrats continue to register new minority voters and the percentage of the minority vote goes even higher, and they continue to vote as a Democratic bloc, we will lose our Democracy.  This election has to be a real wake-up call.

TDM