Benghazi

Let’s recap….

9/11/12 – On the anniversary of the 9/11/01 al-Qaeda attack against the US, the US Consulate and an Annex compound in Benghazi, Libya is attacked over a nearly 8 hour timeframe starting at about 9:40pm local time. In the Consulate, the US Ambassador to Libya and a State Department employee are murdered by the attackers. Several Americans escape from that compound and under rifle and RPG fire from attackers, flee to the Annex compound. Not too long afterwards nearly 200 heavily armed terrorists attack the Annex compound under supporting mortar fire. Two Security officers man a machine gun on the roof of the Annex to defend the compound and call for airstrikes / assistance – even lasing the attacking mortar positions for precision munitions. They are killed after running out of ammunition and after covering the escape of others from the Annex compound whom fled to the Benghazi airport and the protection of a State Department rescue team held in position at that airport.

- No one ordered any rescue, relief, or support military missions to assist those in either of the compounds…. Yet these forces were within reach of the area and ready for orders.

- The State Department had live / real-time video and audio from both compounds during the attack.  An unarmed Predator drone circled overhead as well as communication with US personnel in both the Consulate and Annex compounds.

- Units / people in Libya, Italy, Germany, at sea in the Med, and in Washington DC knew of these contacts.

- The President was made aware of the attack – then went to bed prior to heading out from Washington DC to a Las Vegas campaign fundraiser.

- The Administration – White House and State Department – initially defined the attack as a public / popular demonstration against the US sparked by an obscure video hosted in June on You Tube that was ‘insulting’ to Islam – a demonstration that turned bad and resulted in the storming of the Consulate / Annex and the four deaths. This coincided with other demonstrations and violence against US Embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Pakistan.

- Secretary of State made several high profile speeches / briefs for the press condemning the obscure video and its creator as the cause for the demonstrations and violence – asking for an end to the violence since the US government neither condoned or produced the video.

- The President and the Secretary of State participated in public service messages on Pakistani TV blaming the violence on the video and its creator and saying the US government had nothing to do with it.

- According to the father of one of the murdered security officers, the Secretary of State told him at the service marking the return of the murdered Americans to the US, that the US government would ensure that the creator of the video was going to be prosecuted for his role in igniting the violence (ie creating the video).

- The US Ambassador to the United Nations appears on all 6 major Sunday morning news programs to assert that that violence in Benghazi was a spontaneous popular demonstration against the US motivated by the obscure video that unfortunately turned violent. Denies all links to terrorism or the 9.11 anniversary.

- The President calls for a full investigation into the attack and the government’s response / handling of the attack.

- The President, appearing on ‘The View’ on Sept. 25th, continues to push the case that this was a demonstration motivated by an anti-Islam video on You Tube that unexpectedly turned bad – and that the investigation needs to continue to know details.

- State Department spokesperson stops answering questions – citing the on-going investigation.

- The White House stops answering questions – citing the on-going investigation.

- Mid-level State Department employees testify before Congress that the State Department knew during the attack that it was linked to terrorists. They also acknowledge that the murdered security officers had requested military assistance which was not authorized or provided. [Later we learned that Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods apparently killed 40-60 of the attackers as they made their last stand trying to defend the Annex compound as the attack took place over 2-3 hours.  They even had a laser target designator scoped in on the terrorists' mortars ready for a requested air strike to assist their defense of the Annex compound.]

- Memos and materials from the murdered US Ambassador to Libya, including materials recovered a week (plus) from the wreckage of the Consulate compound, show that the Ambassador had major concerns about a) security for the US facilities and people in Benghazi, b) requested additional security protection, c) noted that Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations, including an al-Qaeda affiliate are expanding their power and control over Benghazi, d) that the new Libyan government had lost effectiveness and control of the city, e) that the security for the US facilities was provided by a small British firm that depended entirely on unvetted local personnel, f) that the local security not only fled just prior to the attack, that members of the local security were busy in the days prior to the attack obtaining intelligence on the people and buildings in the US compounds, and g) and a dedicated security team for Tripoli and Benghazi were ordered out of the country by DC one month prior to the attack.

- In the wake of this information, and the State Department testimony, the ‘official’ description of the attack turned to be that it was a terrorist attack – but all references to being done by the local al-Qaeda surrogate continued to be scrubbed.

- The President and his campaign team began to press the terror attack meme – including the claim that the President called the attack a terror attack as early as his statement on the attack made on September 12th from the WH Rose Garden. This became a major issue in the 2nd Presidential debate – when the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley substantiated the President’s claim during the debate – and disavowed the claim during a post-debate statement.

- Attention started to focus on why the message from 9/11/12 to 9/26/12 focused only on the meme of a demonstration accidentally turned violent – in particular the statements of the President and Susan Rice.

- The White House tosses the CIA under the bus – blaming the 2 weeks of incorrect messaging on the terror attack on incomplete and inconclusive intelligence from the CIA – despite the real-time communications / proof of the contrary from the State Department.

- CIA Director David Petraeus chafes at the CIA being blamed for the Administration’s effort to spin the 9/11 attack – and instructs his aides to provide a CIA developed timeline of what they knew and when. [As this is happening, the DoJ and FBI are investigating the CIA Director over his extramarital affair with biographer Paula Broadwell. The relationship started in fall 2011 and didn’t end until sometime late summer 2012 or fall 2012. The investigation began in May 2012. According to the AG, FBI Director, and WH – the President was never told that his Director of the CIA was being investigated over the affair or misuse of classified information.]

- October 26, the CIA releases their timeline saying that they determined this was a terror attack from the start based on the evidence – including that evidence from the State Department. CBS News releases copies of the CIA briefing from the first week after the attack, used by Susan Rice for her comments to the press and American people, that does not reference terrorism or al-Qaeda.

- In the wake of the release of the CIA timeline, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, begins to express doubts about CIA Director David Pretraeus.

- On November 2nd, Clapper is briefed that the FBI has an active investigation underway into David Petraeus. [He claims he did not advise the President that the FBI is investigating the Director of the CIA.]

- CIA Director Petraeus is asked to testify before Congress on what he and the CIA knew and when. Pressure increases on Petraeus from the DNI to support the Administration’s story.

- When Petraeus refuses to play ball – the DNI tells the Director that the WH has lost faith / trust in him and that he needs to resign. Petraeus resigns, stating the affair as the reason, and it is accepted by President Obama on November 9th.

- During a Nov. 14 Presidential Press Conference, the President notes that a) US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice only spoke on the basis of the intelligence on what she was briefed – that the CIA didn’t see the attack as related to terrorists or al-Qaeda until much later, b) that Susan Rice made the appearances on the 6 Sunday news programs at the behest of the White House, and c) Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, the intelligence, or the determination of what happened. This raises questions as to why, if she had nothing to do with Benghazi, the US Ambassador to the UN was sent out as the Administration’s official spokesperson on the attack, and why was she told that there was no evidence of terrorist / al-Qaeda involvement when the State Department knew this as the attack took place.

- Former Director David Petraeus agrees to testify before Congress behind closed doors on Nov 16. On the 15th, the Wall Street Journal publishes a long story about the last days of Petraeus as the Director of the CIA and the confrontations between the Director, his aides, and the National Intelligence / National Security arm of the White House and their allies inside the CIA.

- During closed door testimony before Congress, Petraeus says that the he and the CIA determined almost as the attack was still on-going that the attack was a terror attack being conducted by an al-Qaeda surrogate timed for the Sept 11 anniversary. He also testified that the assessment / brief from the CIA sent to the WH / National Security Office stated this – and that someone unknown outside of the CIA altered the brief to remove all references to terrorism and al-Qaeda / AQ surrogates – as the brief cited by Susan Rice and the WH was not the brief sent by the CIA.

Beyond these facts – which continue to raise numerous questions about the WH / Administration, we also need to consider the following:

The Obama standard campaign stump made the following claims:

a) The Arab Spring was secular and pro-democracy – deposing dictators in numerous countries.

b) The US / NATO assistance for the Libyan revolution was based on humanitarian grounds and to support and protect the Libyan Arab Spring uprising that ultimately overthrew the Libyan dictator Qaddafi.

c) Democracy is expanding the Middle East because Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt held elections to form new governments.

d) The expansion / control of these new governments by Islamic fundamentalist / radical organizations is not a threat to the interests of the United States in the region.

e) Administration policies and actions against al-Qaeda, ranging from increased drone attacks to friendly outreach to Arab governments to killing the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, have reduced the reach, scope, and terror activities of not only al-Qaeda, but other Islamic fundamentalist jihadist groups. This is not only making the US safer, but the region / world safer.

In the midst of the President’s reelection campaign – a successful terrorist attack which murdered an US Ambassador (the first in 31 years) conducted in an increasingly jihadist / radical Islamic Benghazi by an affiliate of al-Qaeda – discredits the Obama campaign stump.

The knowledge that the Administration reduced security for the compounds - in the face of contrary evidence including numerous requests by the late US Ambassador to Libya would discredit the Obama campaign stump.

The knowledge that the Administration refused to dispatch military / security teams to rescue or assist Americans under terrorist attack in Benghazi would discredit the Obama campaign stump.

Blaming the attack on a demonstration unexpectedly turned violent would reduce the culpability of the Obama Administration in the failure to anticipate the attack, prevent the attack, or order rescue / support forces to the area [citing risk of ‘innocent civilian casualties’].

During the first Obama term – the FBI has scrubbed virtually all references to al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and other jihadist organizations from their training manuals – replacing references to Islamic jihadists with ‘violent extremists’ as part of their institutional policy to not focus attention on ‘jihad’.

The only reason they Administration admitted it was a terror attack was because they could no longer hide the evidence / testimony of Executive Branch workers which stated that the attack was not a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an obscure anti-Islam video from three months earlier.

The reason the CIA information was ‘spun’ was to provide cover for the US Ambassador to the UN who was asked by the WH to become the ‘official’ WH spokesperson on the attack – and whom the President later told the American people ‘had nothing to do with Benghazi’ including the messaging. Questions still remain as to why the SecState, or some Dep. SecState, or National Security / DNI official did not make that ‘dog and pony show’ as the ‘official’ Administration spokesperson.

When pressed for additional information or to answer contradictions – the President has offered that he cannot say more because of the ‘ongoing investigation’.

And questions raised about Susan Rice’s selection / participation in the Administration’s messaging are now being called by Democrat members of Congress as ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ attempts to defame a senior African-American woman in the Obama Administration.

Does any of this raise any questions or concerns with you?

Los Angeles County, California Sample Ballot

With 4 days to go before Election Day, it's time to take a look at my sample ballot - for Los Angeles County, California.  We'll see the choices / considerations that need to be made - and I'll offer my recommendations on not only the candidates - but also the numerous ballot measures that have become so commonplace in California elections.

As regular readers know, I see California as being in a major fiscal crisis - brought on primarily by years (decades?) of progressive political leadership, agendas, and policies.  We have some of the highest state income taxes in country - at both the personal and corporate levels.  The state government is bloated, inefficient, and filled with waste.  It is also in the pocket of special interests ranging from environmentalists to public and private sector unions.  If California would be a country, we would be in the top 10 in the world in terms of GDP - but we would also be very similar to Greece or Spain in terms of our debt, excessive government spending, and challenges.

Today, every single holder of an elected State-wide office is a Democrat - a progressive Democrat at that.  Only a few Republican legislators and a two-thirds majority requirement on tax increases that is part of our State Constitution protects us from annual tax increases to try to bring revenues up to the level of our excessive spending.  In a year where we have between a $16 billion and $20 billion budget deficit - our Governor wants to drive full speed ahead to spend between $66 billion and $120 billion on a high speed rail boondoggle that has no viable business plan or any private investors.

With that, let's look at the state wide ballot initiatives.

Proposition 30 - 'Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Initiative Constitutional Amendment'

This is Governor Brown's $8 billion tax increase - levied primarily on the 'wealthy' (except for an across the board .25 point state sales tax increase) that is to address a $16 billion (today) budget deficit - ensuring adequate funding for education and first responders across the state.  If it doesn't pass, the Governor has promised an additional $5.5 billion cut in education funds, closure of state parks, and layoff's of first responders / prison guards in order to 'balance' the budget.

The Governor's approach is simply base extortion.  It does nothing to repair the fundamental brokenness of the state or address our fiscal crisis.  It just tries to kick the can down the road a few more years.  It reflects the contempt the left / progressives / Democrats have to the voters and residents of California.

VOTE NO on PROP 30

Proposition 31 - 'State Budget, State and Local Government Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute'

This is an amendment to the State Constitution that establishes a 2 year state budget, sets rules for offsetting expenditures - and where the Governor needs to cut the budget during fiscal emergencies.  Returns to local governments $200 million that the State appropriates for its budget challenges.

This places more and stricter controls on the state budget process and attempts to limit some of the games being played by the Governor and Legislation to address the fiscal crisis - including dipping their hands into the pockets of local governments.  We need something to change - and this is as good of a first step as we can do at this time.  Far more is needed, but that would mean voting out the progressives that run this State.

VOTE YES on Prop 31

Proposition 32 - 'Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates Initiative Statute'

This prohibits unions and corporations from using payroll deducted funds, including union dues, for political purposes.  This is designed to end companies and unions from forcing payroll deductions from workers paychecks to fund political advocacy by the entity (company or union).

This is one of the most contentious propositions we face - and one that the unions, in particular the public sector unions, are spending over $60 million in adverts to prevent its passage.  It will hit right at the power of the unions to buy the government - and protect workers / union members from having to fund political causes and candidates that they do not wish to support.

VOTE YES on Prop 32

Proposition 33 - 'Auto Insurance Companies - Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage Initiative Statute'

This amends a current law in California to allow auto insurance companies to set premium pricing based on whether the insured previously was insured with any other auto insurance carrier.  It also allows drivers with previous coverage to receive a discount for having that coverage.

This is based on the calculation that those with auto insurance and maintain auto insurance coverage as required by state law - are more responsible drivers than those who do not have insurance or maintain continuous coverage.  The left hates this because it ranks new drivers and immigrant drivers as higher risks and need to pay higher premiums.

VOTE YES on Prop 33

Proposition 34 - 'Death Penalty Initiative Statute'

This proposition repeals the death penalty in California and commutes the death sentences of over 700 who are on California's death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The proposition is being promoted by those who are anti-capital punishment.  They cite the risk of false convictions as an added concern.  They are also using a fiscal argument - saying that it will be less expensive to keep these convicts in general population than on the segregated death row.

Another factor to consider is that California, while having a large death row population, does not execute its death row population.  The State Supreme Court is very progressive and anti-capital punishment.  With the appeals and legal processes, it can easily be 20-30 years before a convict has run out of options and is cleared to stand for their execution.

We have far better technology and information to take all reasonable precautions to ensure we only convict the guilty.  Once convicted, there are numerous appeals, new hearings, and new trials that take place before a convict would be executed.  So the odds of an innocent person being convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit is pretty remote.  Furthermore some crimes are so heinous that committing them means that the person who did so has eliminated their right to remain alive.

VOTE NO on Prop 34

Proposition 35 - 'Human Trafficking Penalties Initiative Statute'

This proposition increases prison sentences and fines for those convicted of engaging in human trafficking.  In addition, those convicted have to register as sex offenders - and live under the limits and requirements of being registered sex offenders.

This should be a no-brainer to support.

VOTE YES on Prop 35

Proposition 36 - 'Three Strikes Law, Repeat Felony Offenders Penalties Initiative Statute'

This revises the current 'three strikes' law that imposes a life sentence on persons receiving the third felony conviction to only impose the life sentence when the third felony conviction is deemed serious or violent.  Permits judges to re-sentence those convicted of a three strikes violation when the third felony was not serious or violent.

Today, DA's and Judges already have considerable leeway in not imposing a third strike life sentence if the felony committed was not serious or violent.  Imposing it into law via the proposition will create more challenges and more limitations on this leeway.  Evidence shows that those who commit repeated felonies will continue to do so - and the only real way to stop those repeat crimes is to incarcerate them for life.  Keep the law as it is today.

VOTE NO on Prop 36

Proposition 37 - 'Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute'

This requires California establish a totally unique and California food labeling process that increases government control and regulation, increases costs on food producers, and offers little or now additional safety or viable information to protect the consumer.  California already has regulated itself into a nightmare for companies to do business in the state - and this is just another major step deeper into that nightmare.  Our gas is already among the most expensive in the 48 continental states - and this would go a long way to make our food among the most expensive in the 48 continental states.

VOTE NO on Prop 37

Proposition 38 - 'Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs Initiative Statute'

This is the alternative to Proposition 30 - with 2 main differences.  First, the tax increases are spread across the board as opposed to being focused on just the 'wealthy'.  Second it mandates all revenues from this tax increase is dedicated to K-12 education - and for the first four years - also for paying down the state deficit (actually slowing the growth in debt slightly - very slightly).  Tax increase to be in effect for 12 years.

As with Prop 30 it is fundamentally flawed because of how its structured and the 'out' to be used to 'pay down' the state debt - which in other words is being fired into the maw of the State's general fund.  It does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the state when it comes to both fiscal structure and the broken education system which rewards only unions / administrators and not teachers, and clearly not students.

VOTE NO on Prop 38

Proposition 39 - ' Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding Initiative Statute'

The 'justification' of this - to permit California to collect corporate taxes from companies based on the sales that they do in California even if they do not have a physical presence in California - and then allocate the revenues from these taxes strictly to clean energy / environmental projects over the next 5 years.

This is a blatant reach outside the state to collect taxes and punish businesses for doing business in California.  It will increase costs for California's consumers and discourage business being conducted in California.  Then the revenues raised will be tossed into the 'Clean Energy' and / or 'Environmental' project black hole boondoggles.  Pushing 'clean energy' has contributed to California having some of the nation's highest energy costs and the excessive focus on environmentalism is leaving us energy poor and has devastated the state's agriculture industry.

VOTE NO on Prop 39

Proposition 40 - 'Redistricting State Senate Districts Referendum'

In November 2008, voters of California passed 'The Voters First Act', Prop 11, which took away the responsibility of redistricting state districts from the legislature and put it into the arms of a 14 member commission comprising of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 from neither major party.  In 2010, the scope of the commission was expanded to also include US Congressional Districts in the state.

While on paper, this is supposed to be as fair / unbiased process as possible, for many, it appears as if this has been about as unbiased as redistricting being done by a Legislature that is 60% Democrat.  During the public hearing process, organized efforts by the CA Democrat Party and their key allies, including the public sector unions, to manipulate the redistricting process.

This vote is to accept (Yes) the latest redistricting map or to reject (No) the map.  If the map is rejected, the districts will be reviewed and adjusted by officials supervised by the CA Supreme Court.

While not as bad as a legislative redistricting, the process continued to gerrymander district boundaries for political purposes.  I believe the voters need to send a message to the commission that this was intended for significant reform - and in delivering that, they failed.

VOTE NO on Prop 40

LA County Measure - A 

This is an advisory vote asking voters if we should change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the position of the Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position.  Today, this is an elected position - and the current incumbent is currently being held in prison, unable to make bail, charged with corruption - taking bribes to reduce the tax liabilities of individuals and companies.

An appointed County Assessor would be directly accountable to the LA County Board of Supervisors - and able to be dismissed for inability to execute the job or malfeasance.

VOTE YES on Measure A

LA County Measure - B

This proposes a new County ordinance targeting the adult film industry which is very active in LA County.  The ordinance will require producers to obtain a County Health Permit, performers to use condoms, and expand the testing / education of performers on STD's - including regular reporting of results of regular health tests.

The adult film industry is already regulated - with performers undergoing regular monthly testing to ensure they do not have STD's or AID's.  The proposal takes the regulations to another level in an effort to protect the performers.  Yet, there is not a major problem with the existing regulations and processes.  With that, do we really need to expand the existing regulations, oversight, and enforcement?  Is that really the proper role of government?

It is only on this expansion of government, apparently above and beyond regulations and oversight that currently work, that I come down on opposing this measure.  If the current regulations and oversight were not working - if there were major reported health issues within this industry and with the performers that risked those outside the industry - then I could support this.

VOTE NO on Measure B

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Accelerating Traffic Relief and Job Creation - Measure J

This is a measure offered by the state chartered regional planning agency and public transportation operating agency for the County of Los Angeles which calls for a extension of the expiring .5% sales tax increase for an additional 30 years to fund transportation initiatives in the County.  Among the key transportation initiatives targeted, the $3-5B initiative to expand the LA Subway system 'to the sea' - from Downtown LA to the Santa Monica beach area as well as continuing to subsidize and keep fares for the LA Metro / Metrolink from increasing.

Little of the new initiatives will generate the promised benefits - and they are very LA centric as opposed to addressing transportation needs throughout Los Angeles County.  The current Metro system does not have a direct connection to Los Angeles International Airport - but building a subway 'to the sea' is the primary focus.  It takes over an hour on a commuter train to travel 35 miles into LA - but we aren't investing in better trackage or signals to improve the speed / usefulness while maintaining fares?

This agency has limited accountability to the people / taxpayer and is focusing on the wrong priorities.  We should not extend this tax increase until they become more accountable and refocus their attention on real improvements as opposed to progressive 'make work' efforts.

VOTE NO on Measure J

In terms of the individual races - here are my endorsements.

President and Vice President

The current Administration has a record of failure, incompetence, and fecklessness that has been unseen in this country since the Carter Administration.  The policies and agenda of the Obama Administration are preventing the economy from entering a robust recovery.  They have also increased the divides within this country - pitting 'us vs. them' in far too many areas.  It's beyond irresponsible to spend at levels that generate >$1T annual deficits and add over $6 trillion to the national debt.  The foreign and national security policy of the current Administration have weakened the US and emboldened our enemies.

VOTE for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

United States Senator

Democrat Diane Feinstein is seeking her fourth full term as the State's senior Senator.  In the Senate, she is a reliable progressive / liberal vote - and is one of the most liberal members in the Senate.  Her primary role in the Senate is to be a reliable progressive soldier.  She is arrogant and feckless.  Throughout the current race, she has refused to engage her opponent in a single debate - probably knowing that in that format, she would be exposed for what she is.  California needs a Senator who will work for all of the people of the state, not just the special interests including the unions and illegal immigrants.

VOTE for Elizabeth Emken

United States Representative

I'm in the 25th Congressional District, where we are represented by Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon, who is currently the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee.    While Buck has faced some additional challenges in the past several years over some minor local issues, he remains a strong conservative and advocate for the district as well as the members of the Armed Forces.  He understands what we need to do - where we need to go - and shares the conservative vision to obtain those goals.  He deserves another term in office.

VOTE for Howard 'Buck' McKeon

State Senator

I'm in the 27th State Senatorial District - one that has changed because of redistricting.  Todd Zink, the Republican candidate, is a decorated Marine Corps officer and Deputy District Attorney.  He is a conservative and has conservative vision for California based around fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and restoring the Golden State from the damage caused by decades of progressive leadership.

The state needs a real change - and voting for conservative Republicans is how we start that change process.  Plus, we need to prevent the Democrats from passing a two-thirds majority in the Legislature.  If we fail, then tax and spend will expand / continue.

VOTE for Todd Zink

Member of the State Assembly

This is a 38th District open seat - vacated by Cameron Smyth (R) who was term-limited out of office.  The choices are similar to the other individual races - a choice between a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat with completely different visions for the future direction of California.  In this race, the lesser know Democrat has embraced a highly negative campaign - targeting the GOP candidate who has formerly worked for Buck McKeon and ran his own political consulting company.  Scott Wilk, the GOP candidate, defeated 2 other Republican challengers in a very contentious race - but has the skills and vision to represent the 38th District in Sacramento and try to promote change in California.

VOTE for Scott Wilk

Los Angeles County District Attorney

This is the sole County race for unincorporated LA County.  The Democrat candidate is the current Chief Deputy DA, Jackie Lacey.  The other is Alan Jackson, a gang homicide prosecutor, the Republican  candidate.  Lacey, would, if elected, become the first woman and first African-American to hold the office of LA County DA.   Both are more similar in their approach than different - for example, both support capital punishment.  While Lacey is a senior member in the DA's office, Jackson has a track record of successful high-profile prosecutions.

I think that with her experience and some of the intangibles around Jackie Lacy, she would be the better District Attorney - and she edges out Alan Jackson in my mind...but it's really close - because she does support several propositions that I do oppose (like softening three strikes).  The current DA, Steve Cooley, has endorsed her.

VOTE for Jackie Lacey


That is my look at the ballot that I am facing on Tuesday.  I see both the Country and the State moving in the wrong direction - and I am strongly advocating for changes in that direction.  I am also seeking to reduce the size and influence of government - and voting accordingly.

Please get out and vote on Tuesday, November 6.

When You've Lost 'The New Yorker'....

Here are some other on target political cartoons from this past week....

Media Bias - NFL Replacement Ref style...

Comic 'Wizard of Id' parody of Barack Obama's campaign stump....

Barack Obama's clear 'red lines'....

And speaking of red - the 'red ink' of $16+ trillion of debt - a $6 trillion increase in 4 years...

For all of the talk by the Obama Administration and Campaign about the middle class - it's now been found...

Which brings us full circle back to the debate Wednesday night - and Michael Ramirez's take on the Clint Eastwood 'Empty Chair'....

Question to ponder - how much of the media is willing to sell what little remains of their integrity in a defense of Barack Obama and progressivism?  Or will they toss Barack Obama under the bus in order to save progressivism?

Wargaming the 2012 Election - Part 3

This is the post-convention look at the state of the Presidential election - the third part in a series that I started in December 2011.

One of the better sources for viewing the state of the Presidential race is RealClearPolitics.  In addition to political news, the site features a collection of key polls for each individual state as well as an average of all of the polls to define in which direction each state is currently leaning.  Here, using the map from the website, 270toWin.com, is how RealClearPolitics sees the race today based on their RealClearPolitic averaging of each state's polling results.

In this view, President Obama holds a clear electoral college lead, 237 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 191.  The critical swing states are identified as New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada - totalling 110 undecided electoral votes.

However, one of the challenges with the RealClearPolitics average is that they determine where a state leans based on the average of the recent polls taken within the state.  The problem with this is that if some of the polls used to compute the average as based on a skewed polling sample - that poll will then skew the average and could impact the where the state is.

I consider this a major issue.  Throughout many of my daily posts, I've highlighted numerous polls from what one would expect to be unbiased organizations, basing their samples not only on the outlier 2008 turnout, but on a stronger pro-Democrat turnout model today than we saw in 2008 which was a D+7 turnout.

For polling, the sampling data is critical. Here's a look at the historical party turnout data:

Historically, there has been more Democrats voting than Republicans - when measured by party identification.  But 2008 was a huge swing, 7 point change from the previous Presidential election year.  Only in the 10 point decrease in Democrat turnout between 1980 and 1984 surpassed the 7 point change of 2008.

Where do we stand today?

If we only look at the Presidential elections, then one can try to make a case to use either an average or to work around the 1996 and 2000 level which reflects a similar divided government to what we have today.  Hugh Hewitt, the conservative talk radio host, had a very interesting interview with the Public Polling Director of the Marist Institute, Lee Miringoff, earlier this week where Miringoff made the case to justify, statistically speaking, the D+8-12 polls that we are commonly seeing today.  The link is for the transcript of the interview.

I am as skeptical as Hewitt when it comes to the justification made by Miringoff for the D+8 or more poll samples that we are commonly seeing...and are part of the RealClearPolitic average.

For one point, this justification does not take into consideration that massive electoral blowback the Democrats and President Barack Obama received in the 2010 mid-term elections.  The policies of the first two years of the Obama Administration and Democratic control of Congress swung the pendulum far in the other direction.  Independents and Republicans were highly motivated to express their dissatisfaction with the policies and agenda of the Democrats leading our country.

Despite the assurances of the mainstream media that this level of dissatisfaction doesn't remain at the same levels in 2012, I believe that they do.

This is more than just a gut feeling of someone who is a self-professed conservative.

When I look closely at these polls with the D+8 or more sample skews, almost every time I see 2 factors that reflect on the race being significantly different than what we are being told by the 'experts' is the case.

The first aspect is that even with these D+8 or more samples, President Barack Obama holds a very small, tenuous lead - usually within the polls margin of error of 2 to 4 points.

The second aspect is that with these slight leads held by Barack Obama, in nearly every one of these polls, the independent voter is by a range of 8 to 12 points (or more), choosing Mitt Romney over the President.  In both parties, their candidate enjoys a roughly 90% support level of their own party faithful.  The keys to this election, therefore lie with the independents and their vote.  In 2008, the independents went strongly to supporting Barack Obama over John McCain.  In 2010, the independents went strongly to support the local Republican candidate over the Democrat candidate.  In 2012, it appears that the independents are significantly lining up to vote against the reelection of Barack Obama - as is shown in these polls.

Given this, I see the map as starting at this point:

This map has three main differences from the first map.  In addition to the other states listed as swing, I've added Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to the list.  This moves 32 electoral votes from Barack Obama into the undecided list - and makes the race a virtual tie, 191 to 189 in electoral votes.

Recent polls from Connecticut are starting to show a move in that state away from Barack Obama and the Democrat senate candidate seeking to gain the seat of the retiring Senator Joe Lieberman.  The GOP Senate candidate, Linda McMahon, who lost to Richard Blumenthal in 2010, has had a number of polls showing her with a lead and the state's fiscal crisis, behind a tax and spend Governor seeking to increase taxes once again, are providing fuel for those who oppose progressive Democrats.

We are seeing a similar move in New Mexico.  This was undoubtedly assisted by the superb speech given by the state's Republican Governor Susana Martinez during the Republican National Convention.

Pennsylvania remains a critical bell weather state for the President.  With strong minority and union worker support in the key cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, this has usually been sufficient to offset the more conservative support from the rest of the state for the GOP.  But Pennsylvania is being hit hard by the economic challenges we face as well as the effects of progressive policies.  Add to this the effects in Pennsylvania by the EPA's 'War on Coal', and we have a state that is very well a battleground.

I also moved Michigan to the swing state category for very much the same reasons as both Connecticut and Pennsylvania.  There are polls that are showing Romney in a slight lead - and the economic conditions combined with the economic policies of the progressive Democrats are impacting voters.  While the union supporters around Detroit are applauding the auto industry bailout which Obama claims 'saved the US auto industry', there are still some major issues in play.  Michigan is also very much like Wisconsin in terms of the now GOP controlled state government trying to reverse the economic challenges - and Wisconsin's success has provided a viable road map.

In this first cut of winnowing down the battleground states, I believe there are three that look strongly as if they are going in this direction.  Barack Obama should be able to hold onto Connecticut at the Presidential level.  The elite progressives outnumber the independents and conservatives.  If he cannot hold onto Connecticut, then we are looking at an extremely bad night for Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

From what I am seeing, I project that New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and New Mexico are very good bets to vote for Mitt Romney as President.  All will be relatively close, but in each case, they will reject Barack Obama's request for a 2nd term in office on largely economic grounds.  North Carolina has suffered under both progressive Democrat policies and the agenda of the Obama Administration.  Wisconsin is acclaimed the birthplace of progressivism, but under the policies of GOP Governor Scott Walker, fiscal responsibility has been restored - and he remains in his office because of winning a recall election earlier this year that reflected the power of the GOP in the state.

New Mexico, under GOP Governor Susana Martinez, has also addressed some significant fiscal challenges her progressive predecessor created.  Combine this with a superb RNC speech, and Martinez will help propel Mitt Romney to win her state.

While Mitt Romney has a lead, at this point, in the electoral college, both sides have over 20 possible winning combinations to push them over the 270 mark.  The race is still at the point where the remaining battleground states will determine who will lead the US for the next four years.

As I noted, if Pennsylvania goes to Mitt Romney, as is a strong possibility, then Barack Obama realistically does not have a viable option (a mathematical option, but not a viable one) to propel him to reelection.  This was the 'old' worst case scenario for Barack Obama - the 'new' one includes losing Connecticut (and perhaps some other traditionally liberal states in a Reagan-like election).

If the President retains Pennsylvania, that's 20 more electoral votes to his column.  But on the east coast, we have 2 other battleground states.  Despite the RealClearPolitics average of the polls, what I am seeing, particularly when I look beyond skewed polls, are Virginia and Florida both very likely to swing to Mitt Romney.  I am seeing Tea Party strength in both states and stronger pro-Republican enthusiasm in campaign events in each.  With the possible exception of the GOP Senate candidate in Florida, Connie Mack, I am also seeing signs of both states strongly supporting the GOP Congressional candidates.

In this event, the future looks very grim for Barack Obama.  Mitt Romney would be only 3 electoral votes from the 270 needed to win - with 55 electoral votes remaining.

This sets the stage for how I see the election ending in the early hours of November 7th...

With the exception of Colorado, I see all of the remaining undecided states ending in the column for Mitt Romney.  Colorado is a state that has trended more towards liberalism - and while there is a vocal and active conservative population in the state, they are becoming increasingly outnumbered - as well as gaining new liberal support from many who are relocating to the state.  While not likely enthralled by 'Hope and Change' over the past four years, I think Coloradans are going to fall for the false bet that Barack Obama will do a Bill Clinton-esque triangulation in a second term - and support that second term.

Just as Wisconsin is rejecting progressivism and the challenges it created for the state, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa will also reject progressivism.  For Ohio and Michigan, it is their last opportunity to avoid falling down the same path as New York, Illinois, and California.  They have a clear choice - to follow those states or to follow Wisconsin.

I suspect many Nevadans believed they made a huge mistake when they sent Harry Reid back to the Senate - particularly given Reid's record over the past 2 years.  That said, they also didn't have the best possible alternative in the GOP candidate.  No state has been hit harder by the failed policies of the progressives and Barack Obama than Nevada has been hit.

As I've noted in many of my daily QH posts, the mainstream media is actively shilling for Barack Obama's reelection.  The level of bias and propaganda is incredible.  They are pulling out all of the stops to try to spin reality and save progressivism.  But reality for far too many Americans is too hard to spin.

Unemployed, under-employed, reduced wages and personal wealth, the distractions of class, gender, and race warfare, the real wars with radical islam, on energy, and the concept of equality of results over equality of opportunity cannot be easily spun away.

I continue to see and feel an undercurrent around the United States where people are starting to look at the places that are succeeding and those who are not, and determining for themselves why some are winning and some are losing.  I think there are those in swing states, and states that will become swing states (the Oregon's, Washington's, New Jersey's) who are seeing that the fundamental problem with liberalism / progressivism is in the fundamentals of the ideology - not just in the implementation.

Barack Obama's victory in 2008 was hailed as the start of decades of Democrat / Progressive leadership in the United States.  But I think that Obama's term in office, comparable in modern times only to the debacle that was the Carter presidency, will actually fuel another decade of conservative leadership and the start of a move, not to the compassionate conservativism of Bush 43, but far closer to the conservativism of smaller government, a safety net as opposed to an entitlement state, a strong national defense and foreign policy, and  supporting the private sector.

At some point, reality will hit home in New York, Illinois, and California when they run out of other people's money.  When that happens, what will the progressives do then?

The Co-equal Fourth Branch of California Government

The Los Angeles Times today features, what is to me, a surprising article on the California Teacher's Association - the state's largest teacher union.  One prominent Democrat says that the union views itself as 'the co-equal fourth branch of government'.

In my posts and commentary about the fiscal and political state of California, a frequent target is the power and influence of the public sector unions - including the teachers unions.  These unions have had a seriously negative impact on the state of California - sharing the blame with the progressives that dominate the state government and legislature for our current fiscal challenges.  These challenges are not being addressed.  They are deepening - and the 'more of the same' ethically, fiscally, and intellectually dishonest approach to 'correct' these challenges have placed California in a death spiral.

I've cited that California needs the same bold acts of reform as those launched in another progressive state - a state that is turning 'red' because the people of that state have decided to stop 'more of the same' and enact  changes.  When Wisconsin elected Governor Scott Walker and a Republican controlled state house, they sent message that they did not want to become California.

The reforms enacted by Scott Walker and the GOP in Wisconsin targeting the public sector unions - limiting collective bargaining, ending the automatic withdrawal of union dues via payroll deduction, and the other steps to lessen the ability of unions to control government purse strings - has paid immediate real dividends for Wisconsin.  School districts, once in fiscal straits because of collective bargaining agreements that only enriched the unions, now have more control over their fiscal circumstances.  They're in the 'black' - and expanding their services to the students of their districts.  The state and local governments are also retaking control of their spending - and deficits are becoming surpluses....while union membership numbers are collapsing as fast as their power.

That is the model that California and other progressive states need to implement - but seem to lack the will do so.  But if more in California understand the real damage that is being done to all of us, in particular our students, by the California Teachers Association, perhaps we can find the will needed.  This article in the LA Times, is, I think, a step in that direction....even if the LA Times didn't intend it to be.

Last year, as Gov. Jerry Brown hammered out final details of the state budget, he huddled around a conference table with three of the most powerful people in state government: the Assembly speaker, the Senate leader — and Joe Nuñez, chief lobbyist for the California Teachers Assn.

California was on the edge of fiscal crisis. Negotiations had come down to one sticking point: Brown and the legislators would balance the books by assuming that billions of dollars in extra revenue would materialize, then cut deeply from schools if it didn't.

Nuñez said no.

Opposition from the powerful union, which had just staged a week of public protests against budget cuts, could mean a costly legal challenge. So the group took a break, and the officials retired to another room to hash out something acceptable to CTA while Nuñez awaited their return.

It may seem unorthodox for an unelected citizen to sit with Sacramento's elite as they pick winners and losers in the annual spending sweepstakes. But few major financial decisions in California are made without Nuñez, who represents what is arguably the most potent force in state politics.

…
Even before CTA helped Jerry Brown win election, he was sympathetic to many of its causes, such as limiting standardized testing and reducing government's role in schools. On his first full day in office, he sacked the majority of the state Board of Education.

He replaced several proponents of charter schools, parent power and teacher accountability with people friendlier to the union, including one of its lobbyists, Patricia Rucker. A few days later, Brown proposed a budget that eliminated money for a state database of such information as which courses a teacher had taught and what credentials he or she had, a system CTA opposed.

This is a rare, read it all article in the LA Times.

Oh, and how did a deal finally get cut for the California budget?

The deal came when the elected Democrat leadership agreed to a provision that stated no matter how fiscally strapped a school district might be - it could not lay off any teachers during the fiscal year.

So where is California fiscally?  Our budget deficit continues to soar - with Governor Brown's bet that the Facebook IPO would generate billions widely missing the mark and now even more so with state sales tax revenues being down 33.5% from what was estimated / projected in the state budget.  The $9.6 billion cash deficit that existed on the June 30th is now $18 billion and growing.

The state has avoided default by temporarily borrowing from state trust funds, but those accounts will soon need their cash back to continue operating. Today California quickly began trying to sell $10 billion in municipal bonds to fund the record $28 billion they need to keep the lights on. With tax revenue plummeting and the state already the second lowest rated credit in the country, if the independent credit rating agencies downgrade the state to “junk bond", California will be short up to $18 billion and default.

California is America's Greece and Spain....to the point that like Spain, CA is committing to spend $100 billion on a high speed rail network that has no viable business need or market  - all in the name of 'stimulus' - but will only enrich unions and other allies of Governor Brown.

The Golden State is no longer golden - and its time to realize why this is the case.

Fighting back against Mediscare

It's doubtful that the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign was caught unsuspecting by the tactics of the Obama campaign when it came to Paul Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare.  The evidence?

This excellent ad was released earlier today by the Romney campaign -



In 1965, Medicare was created as part of President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' initiatives - Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

The Social Security Act was enacted on this day by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935.

Social Security is, today, 77 years old.

Medicare is 47 years old.

Both were created in different times.  The Medicare actuarial trustees, in this year's report, raise a major concern with the program, saying it will be insolvent by 2024.  That grim pronouncement did not include the impact to the plan by the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) pulling out $716 billion over the next decade to help cover the costs associated with the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The overall Social Security financial report worsened significantly in 2012 - from the 2012 report...

“Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare,” the trustees wrote. “If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

Contrary to the 'scare' tactics of the Democrats, the GOP, and in particular Romney / Ryan are not proposing that either of these plans be eliminated.  They do, however, insist that fiscal changes need to be taken to address the fiscal challenges of our country.  They also propose, in the case of Medicare, to reform the program so that it will remain viable well beyond 2024.  This includes ensuring that those 55 and older are exempted by any reforms while those under 55 have several options available to them, including remaining in Medicare as it is now or selecting the same health insurance options and coverages as currently provided employees of the federal government.

If we as voters are to be scared of anything, what we should be frightened of is four more years of the same anti-business, pro-big government, 'shared prosperity', social justice, stagnant economy, and misplaced priorities of the Obama Administration.

November 2012 is when we need to take action to start righting the course of our ship of state.  If we do not win in November, we may be too far down (as are Greece, Spain, and perhaps California and Illinois) to solve these problems without far more pain that we are willing to undertake.

The World Bank - A New Progressive Mission?

Late last month, the new President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, who was advanced to lead the organization by President Barack Obama from being the former President of Dartmouth College, spoke with the left wing British newspaper 'The Guardian' about his new mission for the World Bank - 'I want to eradicate poverty...'

"The evidence suggests that you've got to do a lot of good, good things in unison, to be able to make that happen," said Kim. "The private sector has to grow, you have to have social protection mechanisms, you have to have a functioning health and education system. The scientific evidence strongly suggests that it has to be green – you have to do it in a way that is sustainable both for the environment and financially. All the great themes that we've been dealing with here have to come together to eradicate poverty from the face of the Earth."

…Nevertheless, he is a big proponent of social protection policies. "I've always been engaged in social protection programmes. But now it is really a signature of the World Bank. We're very good at helping people look at their public expenditures and we say to them things like, fuel subsidies really aren't very helpful to the poor – what you really need is to remove fuel subsidies and focus on things like conditional cash transfer plans. The Bank is great at that."

New to him are climate change and sustainability, he says. "We are watching things happen with one degree changes in ocean temperature that we thought wouldn't happen until there were two or three degree changes in ocean temperature. These are facts. These are things that have actually happened … I think we now have plenty of evidence that should push us into thinking that this is disturbing data and should spur us to think ever more seriously about clean energy and how can we move our focus more towards clean energy."

Social justice.  Climate change.  Sustainability.  The World Bank, under Kim, is going to be Obama lite - led by another far left progressive academic who believes that poverty is 'eradicated' by the redistribution of wealth as it's 'fair' - and remains clueless to the fact that these steps create far more problems than they solve.

In Forbes Magazine, comes a compelling case that the smartest move might be to totally shut down the World Bank as an obsolete non-government entity that no longer has a real mission.

Whatever the merits of individual Bank projects—and the institution has backed some notable disasters over the years—only private sector development in Third World states will raise people out of poverty. And private sector development of the sort which reaches throughout society is possible only without government direction or control. Which means the less World Bank lending, the better.

Nancy Birdsall contended that “A new president needs to corral shareholders and disparate interests to create a fresh mandate for the bank.” Best would be no mandate at all.

The World Bank was created in a different age and time. “The World Bank doesn’t have any obvious role in the current world environment,” observed Easterly: “It’s in a state of crisis, losing its traditional market share.”

In contrast, Kim argued that “the World Bank’s best days are still ahead,” pointing to: “The economic success of emerging market economies, the rise of citizen power led by young people and the unprecedented penetration of new technologies are challenging old development paradigms.” All true—but all good reasons why the Bank is no longer needed.

In Africa, for example, funds from the People's Republic of China are flooding into the region - buying friends and allies from the recipients.  None of these are benign governments or rulers.  Poverty remains endemic throughout much of Africa.  Lost in the shuffle are the really effective and limited efforts by the US and a few international aid organizations who are targeting specific issues like AIDS and Malaria - but still have challenges working through or around the corruptocrats that control so many of those countries and are interested not in eradicating poverty, but enriching their bank accounts and staying in power.

In Africa, as in the United States, the governing elite are the greatest threat to the World's middle class - and the World's middle class is the springboard to really eradicating poverty.

Not even in this country are we really interested in eradicating poverty - because under the social justice, 'fairness' advocacy of President Barack Obama and his fellow progressive Democrats, the goal is all about putting even more people on welfare and government dependency....

The federal government actually runs 126 separate anti-poverty programs. They're managed by 13 different agencies.

We use the word "welfare" to describe money that goes to needy people. But the government's war on poverty is a whole lot bigger. And it's rife with waste and redundancy.

The federal government runs 33 different housing programs: 21 programs to provide food, eight healthcare programs, 27 cash or general assistance programs. It's hard to find a government department that doesn't run an anti-poverty program. All this adds up -- and this is just the federal government.

If you also include state and local spending, the government will spend nearly a trillion dollars this year fighting poverty. That's almost the size of the national deficit this year.

Now let me be clear, I don't object to poor people getting help. My problem is a government throwing money at programs that clearly aren't working. Consider this: All this welfare spending adds up to $20,610 for every poor man, woman and child in the country.

For a poor family of three, that's nearly $62,000 dollars. The poverty line for that family is just $18,500. With this kind of spending, poverty should be wiped out - instead it's growing.

Today, one in seven Americans is living in poverty. The most in almost two decades. All the while spending is soaring.

And, welfare spending for the last four decades -- adjusted for inflation? Up, up, up. How can we spend all this money, and see so little progress?

We don't eradicate poverty by creating and perpetuating cycles of dependency.

But perhaps the progressives can take a hard look at history - and Adam Smith as a foundation, and the US Founding Fathers as another, to see how poverty, if not eradicated, can be eliminated for so many as they find welcome paths into the middle class - and perhaps beyond.

"It's a Miracle"

Barack Obama - 'It's a Miracle'....

"That Looks Bad"

Members of the White House Press Corps questioned White House Press Flack, Jay Carney, over the fact that the President's Job Council...

... has not met in the last 6 months - despite the collapse of new job growth in the 2nd Quarter of 2012...

...where only 225,000 new jobs were created, fewer than the number of Americans added to the Social Security Disability Insurance rolls over the same timeframe.

Jay Carney's response...

.... The President was 'too busy' over the last 6 months to meet with the members of his Job's Council....

... as he's attended 106 campaign fundraisers, basketball games, and who knows how many rounds of golf.  'The Busiest President'....
 

Perhaps we can add this to Bill Whittle's latest 'Afterburner' series where he makes 'The Case to Re-elect Barack Obama'....

"Obama's View on Business 'Explains Nearly Everything'"

President Obama's campaign stump speech in Virginia where he noted that 'if you got a business - you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen' continues to reverberate.  Fox News Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume, editorialized last night that Barack Obama's view on business 'Explains Nearly Everything'...

It is fair to say that we know more tonight than we ever have about the president's view of business and the economy. His assertion over the weekend that, 'If you got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen' explains nearly everything. He wasn't talking about God, he was talking about government.


Here is a man that believes not just that the government provided framework of roads, bridges, defense and law enforcement helps the private sector. He believes these things are are the nerve center, the driving force. More important than any individual, talent, enterprise or initiative. As he put it: 'There are a lot of smart people out.' As for diligence: 'There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.' Success? 'You didn't get there on your own.'


This is a view that successful businessmen, women are merely the ones who did better at taking advantage of the benefits that government has bestowed. Therefore, he thinks they should be glad to pay an even greater share of federal taxes than they do. He calls that, 'giving back,' as if the government conferred all that they have and they shouldn't mind returning a bit more of it where it came from.


This explains why so much stimulus money was spent to protect government and why his legislation on healthcare and financial reform involved extending the reach and power of, you guessed it, government.

Chair of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan also took the President's embracement of liberal fascism to task in a discussion with James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute...

But Obama said it all. And Ryan absolutely tore into the president in a chat I had with him earlier today. Among the highlights:


– “The idea that these entrepreneurs owe all their success to some government bureaucrat or some centralized planner just defies reality.”


– “Every now and then, President Obama pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the veil slip from time to time.”


– “We believe in free communities and this is a statist attack on free communities.”


– “He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.”


– “As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of the 20th century.”


– “Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.”


– “He wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the entire Reagan revolution.”

What the President is offering is not surprising - given his point of view... As the Investor's Business Daily notes in one of their editorials today...

He blasted Wall Street, big business, big banks, big oil, "excess profits," "corporate profits" and "fat contracts," "millionaires" and the "wealthy."


He called out the "corporation executive" for not paying his "fair" share.


He attacked "GOP" tax cuts that "spare the rich" and "benefit millionaires."


He trumpeted the public sector over the private sector.


He advocated wealth redistribution from greedy "corporations" to "health insurance" and "public works projects."


He favored taxpayer-funding of universal health care. He supported government stimulus to rescue America from (allegedly) another Great Depression.


He wanted to rid America of "huge funds" finding their way into the "pockets" of "Wall Street." "Instead," he declared, "money should be spent for the benefit of the people instead of the corporations."


He supported nationalization and singled out General Motors for government action.


He favored the Russians at the expense of countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia.


He rejected Winston Churchill, and wanted the heralded prime minister nowhere within the White House.


He insisted that American foreign policy was about "big profits" for big oil.


He cited the American Founders and the U.S. Constitution, and described himself and his policies as "progressive," while his detractors accused him of being a communist.


He adopted slogans like "Forward" and "Change." He wanted to transform America through what he called "fundamental change."


Who is this man?


If you answered "Barack Obama," you're only half right. The answer is Frank Marshall Davis, Hawaii mentor to Barack Obama, and Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member No. 47544.

The statement from Barack Obama does, as Brit Hume notes, 'explain everything'. This is how Barack Obama views the United States, views capitalism, and believes to his core - that government is the solution and property / wealth belongs to government. What individuals are 'permitted' to retain, are done so because of either the government's generosity or the cheating of the individual. The state is the primary focal point for all - and we citizens are subservient to the state.

It is, as John Sununu, a Romney campaign surrogate, notes in this video - 'I wish this President would learn to be an American...'

In the Fiscal Times, there is a commentary that notes that President Obama is now adding the U.S. Economy and it's recovery to those being tossed under the bus...

President Obama will stop at nothing to win four more years in the White House – including cracking this fragile egg shell of a recovery and sending the U.S. into recession. With every sign that the economy is slowing, our Campaigner in Chief is creating even more anxiety by taking an unwavering stand -- he will not, he affirms proudly, extend current tax rates on all Americans. Instead, he demands the wealthy pay more. That’s it. That’s his grand plan for getting the country moving again. A more harmful and negative campaign has surely never been waged.


Nearly every day there are new signs that the country may topple into recession. Today we read that retail sales fell 0.5 percent in June – the third consecutive monthly downturn. That hasn’t occurred since the fall of 2008, when the country was paralyzed with fear over the financial crisis. Think of that; consumers are reacting today just as they did when it looked like the world was coming to an end. That says volumes – about the tone set by the White House, the confidence this president has inspired in our citizenry, and about his inability to lead the country forward.
…
The people of the United States deserve better. We need a cheerleader and advocate. We do not need our president hoping to ignite anger and envy against our most productive citizens. We need to extend the Bush tax cuts, undertake serious tax reform and all the other issues – immigration, education, infrastructure investment, entitlements reform – that have been sidelined as President Obama focuses on being reelected.

While the President will not see his comment as a gaffe - after all, he is only speaking from his own deeply held beliefs - this is another major turning point that will damage the President's campaign. He might want to continue to press the meme of class warfare, to demonize the wealthy (and Mitt Romney in particular), to make a base play for the 50% of Americans who don't pay any taxes, and appeal to those captured in the government's quicksand of dependency - but this statement is so contrary to fundamental American values that it will ultimately turn even a number of those who are dependent on the government.

They will also, I believe, see the complete vapidity and fallacy around the standard arguments being made to excuse the President's telling comment - with the efforts to point out the exceptions to the rule and using those examples, like Obama's effort to use the DARPA development of the Internet, as proof that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other internet conglomerates only got where they are because the government built the Internet.

The government might have built the Internet. But it took entrepreneurs, visionaries, and risk takers from the private sector to build the powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, etc which took that basic foundation and turned it into so many jobs and so much wealth creation.

This election is about a very simple choice - Are we a people who exist to serve the government?  Or are we a people who has a government that is in place to serve us and help protect our inalienable rights?  If you believe in the former, then you will be voting for President Barack Obama and his continued expansion of the power and reach of the government.  You will be voting for liberal fascism and a version of socialism.  And with your vote for socialism, remember this...

'Socialism - Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory'

Progressive Ideology and the Founding Fathers

This Independence Day, I noticed an interesting trend promoted by a number of progressive columnists to try to link their vision and their ideology to that of the Founding Fathers of the United States.  It is as if they are attempting to revise history in order to create a meme that the expansion of government, the expansion of entitlements, 'social justice', 'fairness', and 'fundamental change' they are currently pushing are no different from the steps the Patriots took to break with Great Britain and form the United States of America.

EJ Dionne, writing for the Washington Post, puts his case this way...

The Founders would no doubt be gratified that we still care so passionately about their work. But they might be quite surprised to learn how much of our health-care debate focused on a careful parsing of what the Constitution’s clauses on regulating commerce and levying taxes allowed us to do to solve a problem that would have been unknown to them. We would be truer to the Founders’ intentions and spirit if we followed Madison in having more confidence in our own good sense and our knowledge of our own situation.


The genius of the Founders is that they created a government designed to act, and so I’d propose a new patriotic ritual involving an annual reading of the preamble to our Constitution:


“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


Yes, the first word of the Constitution is “we,” and its purposes include establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. Before we expend enormous energy deciding how many angels can dance on the head of the commerce clause, we would usefully keep in mind the broader objectives of our great experiment.

Yes, let's not spend a lot of time or effort deciding how many angels can dance on the head of the Commerce clause, because the recent Supreme Court of the United States ruling on Obamacare's Individual mandate clearly answered that question. The SCOTUS ruling also clearly answered the question as to if the Individual mandate was constitutional under the 'Necessary and Proper' clause. In both cases, the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States clearly stated that the Individual mandate was unconstitutional under both of those clauses of the US Constitution. Furthermore, the opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts specifically took steps to narrow the interpretation of the Commerce clause - the first narrowing of it since it was expanded considerably during the New Deal era.

There is a fundamental difference between today's (or Woodrow Wilson's) progressives and the Founding Fathers of this country. The Founding Fathers clearly established the Constitution of the United States as a framework that limits the power of the federal government- defining specifically what the federal government could do and reserving all remaining powers to the states and the people of the United States. They defined a government that is accountable to the people - not a framework of a people accountable and responsible to / for the government.

They established a process for the 'evolution' of the Constitution - the process of passing amendments. They made this process particularly challenging so that it would not be easy to expand the reach and the power of the federal government without the direct consent of the governed.

The Founding Fathers of this country were motivated by the likes of John Locke and not the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who is not only the model for progressives, but also for the Jacobin's of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, and OccupyWallStreet.

Rousseau saw government as the tool to implement the 'general will' with a few defining that 'general will'. He advocated the use of the unchecked power of the state so that the government (or state) would be able to 'force men to be free' and be more 'moral' that they would be outside of the direct control and influence of the state. The first major implementation of the Rousseau approach came through the Jacobin's of the French Revolution - a revolution that shares only the term 'revolution' with that of the American Revolution. The Jacobin's envisioned a new society - a 'fundamental change' and ruthlessly with the power of the state and Madame Guillotine embarked on a bloody reign of terror to ensure the creation of the new society.  It did not last.

Unlike the American Republic which has lasted 236 years, the French Revolution ended in a dictatorship, followed by a return to the monarchy, and nearly 80 years passing before a republic would be formed.  Today, if I counted correctly, France is on it's fifth republic.  We remain on our first.

Rousseau's concept of 'We' was in that the collective, the believers, needed to use the power of the state to reconstruct society to meet the demands of the 'general will' - which is exactly what Dionne means when he says 'promoting the general welfare' as well as his focus on 'We'...

This is all about the power of the state, the power of the collective we, to ensure and justify that their ends are obtained regardless of the wishes, desires, or freedom of the individual.

The 'classical liberalism' of John Locke has nothing in common with today's liberals or progressives. Classical liberalism advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It draws heavily on Adam Smith's writings, in particular 'Wealth of Nations' when it comes to economics, trade, and the marketplace.

The Founding Fathers, in their forming of the United States, built a country on the foundation of this classical liberalism. This foundation of classical liberalism is the cornerstone of not only the core American values that we treasure, but the values of today's Reagan / Buckley conservatives. What we wish to 'conserve' is this foundation based on classical liberalism introduced to us by those remarkable men who we call our country's Founding Fathers.

What we celebrate on the Fourth of July is their vision and wisdom...and it is our conservative principles that are, Mr. Dionne, true to the Founders' intentions and spirit of a nation based on 'classical liberalism'.