MADDOG10's Blog

Romney: “We don’t need a secretary of business…we need a president who understands business”

Kyle Becker November 1, 2012 1:14 pm

President Obama recently showed his cards that he doesn’t have any interest in helping businesses, only taking money from them and redistributing it. The president has touted the idea of a Secretary of Business, which might as well be known as a “crony capitalist czar.”

The president has shown throughout his four years that not only does he not understand business, he doesn’t really care to. His cabinet is comprised of pointy-headed academics with less combined business experience than any administration in modern American history.  Perhaps one of these days, he might learn that he already has a Secretary of Commerce.

The results coming out of Obama’s coterie of clusterschtupps have been disastrous: celebration over pathetic 2.0% GDP growth, over 23 million jobless, 53% of new college grads unable to find real jobs, and 47 million on food stamps. This isn’t all a coincidence, and the housing market bust is not solely to blame.

The Democrats’ economic policies never lead to success, because in their eyes, the private sector exists to loot and give away to unions and other special interest groups. General Motors, for example, was a company whose bondholders could be stiffed and their assets given away to union members. The president’s corrupt attitude towards business is also demonstrated by the dozens of green energy enterprises like Solyndra and Abound Solar that our own “capitalism czar” Barack Obama bet on — and lost. No matter, it wasn’t his money to invest in the first place.

The Democratic Party’s hubris is also displayed by the federal money sent by the president to explicitly aid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 2010 election campaign. Then again, no one blinks when Harry Reid and his son are caught up in a clear financial conflict of interest over how to spend taxpayer money, because it is a foregone conclusion that Washington politicians have the power and authority to “run the economy.”

This is not to let Republicans off the hook. The GOP has its own particular brand of corruption, mainly through splurging on defense contracts that are not thoroughly purged of waste and graft. Many of the horrible Obama economic policies of the last four years were really bad Bush economic policies of the preceding eight years (bailouts, stimulus, expensive government-run healthcare programs, etc.).

But Romney’s business practices show that he is an advocate of the market system; and even if one disagrees with the sometimes painful process of making businesses lean and profitable, there is nothing to suggest that Romney is an outright crony corporatist — or else we would all know about it (and not be hearing incessantly about his tax returns and about the “binders full of women” gaffe). And too many people either dismiss or are not aware of Romney’s criticism of The Fed.

A Secretary of Business would be just one more perfidious pointman in a federal government that is the corruption superhighway for the nation.  If we can’t get a president who will change all the traffic lights to red, we can at least get one who will change them to yellow.

October 29, 2012 

“At this point…Gallup Daily tracking of likely voter preferences suggests Obama has lost more support than he could afford to, given his current [51% to 45%] deficit to his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.”

If this sounds like good news, the Gallup 7 day tracking poll has even better.  Mitt Romney has been ahead of Barack Obama for the past several days with the October 27 result of 51-45, once again putting the challenger over the 50% level into territory which Obama has failed to approach for a very long time.

And now,  according to Gallup’s “demographics of likely voters,” it appears the 2012 election will find more Republicans than Democrats heading to the polls on November 6^th!

Over the past few years, more voters have been identifying themselves as Republican and fewer as Democrat. As Gallup sees it, this means that “…the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.” In 2004, Republican voters outnumbered Democrats by a 39-37 margin in the Gallup poll with 24% identifying themselves as independent. This year, Gallup’s numbers have Republicans holding a 36-35 advantage while “leaning” voters favor the GOP by 49-46. In 2008, Democrats held a 10 point advantage in this important demographic. And many polls—especially those of mainstream media representatives—are still using a near 2008 breakage between the parties, polling Democrats in 2012 with a turnout advantage of between 5 to 13 points!

In 2004, the final Gallup result prior to Election Day gave George Bush a 2 point advantage over John Kerry. And Bush won the election by just that margin. If Mitt Romney’s current 6 point advantage should hold for the next 10 days, even the most egregious Democrat voter fraud in swing states would probably not be enough to put Obama over the finish line. For Obama has not gained ground among any of his base voter blocs. In fact, it is believed he will lose support among Catholics, Jews, women, men and even blacks. A current Survey USA poll gives Obama just 70% of the black vote in Ohio while Romney earns 22%, a remarkable result which could not have occurred just a few years ago.  And the 16 point edge which Obama had among women voters was just 4 points a week ago and is now virtually gone according to a Rasmussen poll.

Naturally anything can happen between now and Election Day. The ancient drunk driving charge so eagerly advanced by the liberal media against George Bush turned a virtual sure thing into a very close election in 2004.

But it’s the 4-year performance of Barack Obama that will drive voters in the 2012 election and neither the very excited Republican base nor even independents will be diverted from throwing the Marxist, Chicago thug out of the White House. And with a Republican advantage in numbers on Election Day, we could witness a blowout which will make news anchors weep on election night.

CIA was told, twice, to ‘stand down’ during Benghazi attack

Kevin Danielsen October 26, 2012 7:37 pm

The details concerning the 9/11 Benghazi attack are getting murkier by the day.  Where once, the Obama administration attempted to put forth the sterilized notion that the attack was a result of a spontaneous protest, the event has now metastasized into a bloody monstrosity.  Details from intelligence sources have surfaced, saying that the CIA was twice denied the request for reinforcement and told to stand down during the attack.  Fox News reports:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

In fact, the report even states that a member of the CIA team on the ground had painted the attacker’s mortar position, calling in coordinates, but waited in vein for the airstrike.  Also, the assets maintained constant radio contact with command, while the attackers pounded the CIA safehouse.  The reinforcements were blatantly denied.  To this, Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta claims that they couldn’t send in backup, because they didn’t know what was going on:

“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

However, they had ample intelligence, including -not one- but two surveillance drones in the air, along with the realtime intelligence from the CIA assets on the ground.

So, what help could they have gotten, even if it was granted?  Well…

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

If you didn’t feel like reading that massive paragraph… it basically says that a small army was available, accompanied with air support.  Simply, Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the other 3 that died along side him, could have been saved, but Washington adamantly decided against it (then, tried to cover it up in the days after).

This debacle stinks to high hell, but virtue can still be found in mire:

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack.

These folks ignored direct orders, and went into the fray to save their countrymen.  It was uncommon courage.

Nevertheless, for it, they were awarded a trip home in a metal box.  Washington must be held accountable.