My Closing Argument, and This Ain’t Just Rhetoric

Overview: My Main Philosophical Reason I’m Voting For Mitt.

I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.
(more…)

Women United: “When the SEALs Called, They Got Denied” (#Video)



American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

BREAKING: CIA Told To Stand Down In Libya; Father of Killed ex-SEAL Calmly asks Why

Fox News today released two more disturbing reports about the events at Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

First, Fox 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.

Here’s the video:


Remember that the attacks came in waves and lasted for six and a half hours. Drones were in position to watch. Teams could have been deployed from Italy and arrived in time to help. What happened?

Reacting to this news, Charles Woods, the father of killed ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, didn’t mince words:

The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack “are murderers of my son.”

Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.

“They refused to pull the trigger,” Woods said. “Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son.”

Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to “stand up.”

Here’s his son’s story, and the father’s reaction:


Glen Beck also interviewed Mr. Woods today. He asked Mr. Woods about his interactions with the president, vice president and Secretary of State Clinton. He was not impressed that any of them were terribly sincere in their expressed apologies. Our vice president even made a couple less than appropriate remarks (surprise), and Mrs. Clinton explicitly said they’d go after the guy who “made that film” is arrested; not the attackers. Here’s that video:

When can we expect the administration to respond to these, and other inflammatory allegations, or should we expect to be kept in the dark until after the election?

Mitt Talking Points

For those of us talking to friends about why Mitt over Obama, I thought I’d compile a few talking points:


1. National Debt.

national debt

–Obama has significantly added to our now $16 trillion in national debt and has had over $1 trillion in deficits in each of his four years, after promises to cut deficit in half. Obama still has no plan, unless you count the glossy photo brochure with re-tread unfulfilled promises from 2008. Romney / Ryan do have a plan.


2. Bipartisanship.

–Mitt has been a model of bi-partisanship, which will be needed to reduce the deficit. Obama has blamed a GOP Congress for his failures.

3. Mitt’s a Model of Success.

–Mitt’s business, personal and government life are models of success. He’s actually done what Obama has promised: balanced budgets, turned broken enterprises around. Obama can’t seem to get past his own pride.

4. Four More Years?

–We have experienced 4 years of Obama. To expect better the 2d term is, by definition, insane. He knows he can’t change Washington from the outside.

5. Historically Low Employment.

–3.5 years of unemployment over 8%. If people hadn’t left workforce unemployment today would be over 10%.


6. Obama’s Work Ethic.

–Obama seems to show up about half the time (famously missing security briefings, unbelievable number of golf games). Mitt is already preparing just in case he wins the election, so he’ll be ready to hit the ground running.

7. Obamacare.

–This is our last chance to unwind Obamacare. Otherwise all the taxes, future healthcare rationing, lack of doctors and other problems will be permanent.

8. Supreme Court.

–Between 2 and 3 Supreme Court justices are likely to retire during the next 4 years, a liberal, a conservative and a swing justice. The next president will likely stack the court for a generation, either right or left.

9. Mitt Has a Plan.

–Mitt has a 5 point plan for economic success, Obama only attacks Mitt; does not have a real plan. Mitt’s plan: expand energy, build workers’ skills, cut deficit, focus on small business, promote fair trade. Obama’s: raise taxes, keep spending.

10. Stuff Obama Says (Odd Priorities; Egotism).

–Stuff Obama says: 4 deaths in Libya were a “bump in the road.” “If you have a small business, you didn’t build that.” Conservatives cling to guns and religion. He tells the Des Moines Register he has a plan to deal with immigration but wants to keep it off the record. Telling the Russian president he’ll have more flexibility when he doesn’t face re-election. I could go on.

11. Newspaper Endorsements.

–Reno Gazette Journal and a slew of other papers just endorsed Mitt.

12. Weak Foreign Policy.

–Obama’s foreign policy isn’t working; projecting an image of weakness has invited attack. First US ambassador to be killed in 30 years after security assistance was requested; the White House was alerted but did nothing while a drone watched. Stories out of the administration were inconsistent for weeks.

13. Twelve Million Jobs.

–Mitt has promised to create 12 million jobs in his first term.

14. President Biden?

–If anything happens to Obama, Joe Biden would be president.

I know there are others. My imagination tends to wane in the wee hours of the night. Add to comments what your talking points are…

BREAKING: White House Told During Benghazi Attack That It Was Terrorism

UPDATE: Greta van Susteren and Liz Cheney discuss the president’s debate statement he did all he could to protect our people during the attack, while our forces only an hour’s flight away in Italy weren’t deployed during any of a 7 hour, multi-wave attack our leaders were able to watch from drones overhead. Even an F-18 flyover may have scared the attackers off, but nothing was done. Meanwhile on one occasion Reagan acted within 90 minutes to scramble fighters to take down a possible terrorist threat in the sky. Decisive leadership can get things done. The question is: where was the president? Where was the Secretary of State? Wouldn’t the Secretary of Defense have given the president a choice of assets to deploy in the region? Nothing was done, and our president says he did all he could? Greta: “we just sat and watched.”


This reported tonight by Reuters, CBS, Fox and others.

Watch Fox’s principal report here:


Reuters reported:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Three emails were obtained.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Were these just a few emails lost in the rush? Nope. According to the Examiner:

“Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding,” van Susteren added. One of the addresses that received the emails “is the White House Situation address,” she said.

What else do we need to know? Hundreds received these emails, including the White House situation room. There’s no room for confusion. Immediate reports did not suggest a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video. They clearly indicated a terrorist attack.

While I have a hard time calling anyone a liar, it’s getting harder and harder to come up with plausible excuses for how the White House could possibly have maintained in all honesty a position that the attack in Benghazi, which they watched through military drones, was a reaction to the YouTube video. It’s getting nigh impossible to come up with any possible explanation other than utter incompetence or dishonesty. For all Obama’s bluster in Monday night’s debate about “one thing [he] learned” is the need as Commmander-in-Chief to send clear messages and avoid changing positions, his record on this point is disastrously inept.

With this information, how can the White House get to a place where it blames an irrelevant YouTube video for 2 weeks rather than saying it was a terrorist attack? How can it send out the UN ambassador to perpetuate this story with such certitude?

While officials did [early on] mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

It would be one thing to come out and say “we just don’t know what happened, we are investigating and will let you know when we know something.” But it’s clearly another to blame a cause the evidence before you indicates is wrong.

Here’s CBS’ video report:

If, as this report suggests, the president really thought terrorists were behind the attack, why didn’t the administration slow down and say they just didn’t know? Why take such a definitive position contradicted by the evidence?

Something is really off here, and the president needs to come clean. Was it that the White House truly believed the CIA report mentioned by the Washington Post that suggested the Benghazi attack was a result of the video? If so is this a case of willingly believing the story that suits you best despite significant evidence to the contrary? What does it say about the president or his administration that he’s willing to ignore facts staring him in the face? My bottom line is that it’s getting tougher to find ways to let the White House off the hook here.

Debate In Boca Raton: Obama’s Stink Eye, Romney Boosts Presidential Stature

Obama tried to appear intimidating throughout the evening… The President also clenched his jaw plenty of times through the third and final presidential debate with Governor Mitt Romney at Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL. Oct 23, 2012 (photographer unknown)

It’s all about swing states and undecided voters…

After last night’s debate in Boca Raton, one of the much-talked-of “undecideds” DECIDED. She (yes, one of the prized female voters) appeared on FOX News this morning to explain.

What swayed her is key.

Identified as ‘Wendy’, she felt that, even though last night’s debate was about foreign policy, it all kept coming back to the economy. She was impressed with Mitt Romney’s economic expertise and got the salient point he made that a strong national defense depends on a strong military and a strong military depends on a strong economy. When asked about Obama’s performance and especially his meant-to-insult ‘horses, bayonets, aircraft carriers’ comment she replied, “Honestly, he came off like a bully.” Wendy concluded that Obama’s tone was degrading and for her, personally, she did not like it.

Condescension and ridicule is not appealing, especially to many women, and especially when the one doing the condescending and ridiculing has such a failed record. Obama has become the politician he excoriated when he first ran for president.

Obama’s locked-on, aggressive, theatrical glare toward Romney throughout the debate revealed a peevish, insecure president. Instead of making himself look like the Commander-in-Chief, he reduced himself to Commander-of-Stink Eye.


What are others saying about the debate?

They’re saying if one wasn’t aware of American politics and had just tuned in, they would have thought Romney was the President and Obama was the wanna-be challenger. Romney also handily dismissed Obama’s false meme that he’s a warmonger. He’s NOT SCARY.

They’re also saying: Romney “LOOKED AND SOUNDED PRESIDENTIAL.”

“Romney Did What He Needed To Do” … “He Gets The Win” … “Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama”

Romney Press:

The Wall Street Journal: Mitt Romney “Wasn’t Rattled, And If Anything Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama.” “Mr. Romney was clearly keeping his eye on his main challenge of the evening, which was looking Presidential on issues that offer an incumbent a natural advantage. He passed that test with ease, making no major mistakes while offering impressive detail on everything from the radical government in Mali—make that ‘north Mali’—to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. He wasn’t rattled, and if anything looked cooler than a sometimes peevish Mr. Obama.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)

New York Post: “Romney More Than Held His Own, Proving Himself A More-Than-Credible Potential Commander-In-Chief. … He Gets The Win.” “President Obama went on the attack against Mitt Romney again last night in their final debate — a tactic usually reserved for the challenger. The president, no doubt, felt the need — given Romney’s recent surge in the polls and Obama’s disappointing record on foreign-policy issues, the topic of the debate. But Romney more than held his own, proving himself a more-than-credible potential commander-in-chief. By that alone, he gets the win.” (New York Post, 10/23/12)

ABC News’ Rick Klein: “In A Debate About Who Should Be Commander-In-Chief, Mitt Romney Was Just As Much In Command As The Man In The Job Now.” (ABC News, 10/23/12)

Time’s Mark Halperin: Romney “Completed The Trifecta Of Appearing As The President’s Semiotic Equal In Every Debate.” (Time, 10/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens: “Mitt Romney Emerges Looking Like A Perfectly Plausible President…” “[Romney’s] most effective turns in the debate came when he brought it all back to the economy. He seemed reasonable and tempered and pragmatic and unruffled and therefore presidential. … But Mitt Romney emerges looking like a perfectly plausible president—which was no doubt all he wanted from tonight.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)

Governor Mitt Romney shakes hands with Barack Obama after the debate at the Keith C. and Elaine Johnson Wold Performing Arts center at Lynn University on October 22, 2012 in Boca Raton, Florida. Click on image to enlarge. (Photo – Getty Images)

Politico’s Alexander Burns: Romney Had “A Cooler Approach To The Debate That Reflected His Enhanced Stature…” “Romney, for his part, took a cooler approach to the debate that reflected his enhanced stature in a race that has tightened since the first debate in Denver at the start of October.” (Politico, 10/22/12)

CNN’s John King: “After Three Debates, The Trend Line Is Moving Governor Romney’s Way.” “After three debates, the trend line is moving Governor Romney’s way. In all nine tossup states, Governor Romney was in a stronger position this morning than he was the day before the first debate” (CNN, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Glenn Thrush: Romney “Showed An Easy Mastery Of The Details That Has Sometimes Bedeviled Lesser Candidates.” “Rules or no, Romney was at his most effective when calmly articulating his economic case and calling out the president for failing to articulate a detailed vision for his second term. … Romney didn’t embarrass himself on the issues, and showed an easy mastery of the details that has sometimes bedeviled lesser candidates.” (Politico,Politico 10/23/12)

New York Daily News’ Joshua Greenman: “But For The Purposes Of Fast-Approaching Nov. 6, What Happened Was: Romney Did What He Needed To Do.” (New York Daily News, 10/23/12)

Politico’s John Harris: Obama Had “A Nitpicking, Overly Aggressive Strategy … Diminishing The President’s Greatest Asset Which Is The Fact He Is Already Commander In Chief.” HARRIS: “I felt that in a number of times when the president was making his point so aggressively. What was communicated in those exchanges was not strength and confidence but what was communicated was a kind of, sort of a nitpicking, overly aggressive strategy which had the effect of diminishing the president’s greatest asset which is the fact he is already commander in chief.” (C-SPAN, 10/22/12)

Commentary Magazine’s Jonathan Tobin: “Obama Wasn’t Able To Throw Romney Off His Game Or Embarrass Him … It Was Romney That Looked And Sounded Presidential…” “Despite interruptions and attempts to turn even the points they agreed upon into disagreements, Obama wasn’t able to throw Romney off his game or embarrass him. By contrast, it was Romney that looked and sounded presidential, avoiding issues that work to the Democrats’ advantage like Afghanistan and refusing to be ruffled.” (Commentary Magazine, 10/23/12)

Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “Mitt Romney’s Aim Was To Present Himself With The Demeanor And Grasp Of Foreign And National Security Issues Of A President Of The United States. He Succeeded.” (Weekly Standard, 10/23/12)

UPDATES:

Weekly Standard’s William Kristol: “Tonight, Romney Seems As Fully Capable As—Probably More Capable Than—Barack Obama Of Being The Next President. He Probably Will Be.” (Weekly Standard, 10/22/12)

NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “POTUS Is Consistently Trying To Draw Romney Into A More Contentious Debate. It’s What Challengers Do Who Think They Are Behind.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

CNN’s Sam Feist: “Men In The CNN Focus Group Loved Romney’s Answer On Education.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Dylan Byers: “Romney Looks Presidential. Period. & That Is What He Needs From These Three Debates.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Patrick O’Connor: “Romney Is Presenting Himself As The Sober Future President, While Obama Is Attacking The Republican Nominee Like A Man Sliding In The Polls.” “Well, the distinctions seem fairly clear at this point: Romney is presenting himself as the sober future president, while Obama is attacking the Republican nominee like a man sliding in the polls.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/22/12)

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “I Would Have Thought The Guy That Had Turned Out To Be Mitt Romney Was The President…” WALLACE: “Yeah, let me first give you my general opinion. And that was, I thought in the middle of the debate that if I had been on the desert island for the last four years and I had just been parachuted into this debate, I would have thought the guy that had turned out to be Mitt Romney was the president protecting a lead and that Barack Obama was the challenger trying, somewhat desperately to catch up.” (Fox News, 10/22/12)

CNN’s David Gergen: “I Think Mitt Romney Did Something Extremely Important To His Campaign Tonight: He Passed The Commander-In-Chief Test.” (CNN, 10/22/12)

If you missed the debate last night, here it is:

Debate transcript may be found here.

See great PHOTOS here.

Obama Foreign Policy: Seriously Sub-Optimal

Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.

Overview.

I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”

So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.

His One Argument: bin Laden

Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”

First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.

Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.

Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.

Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots

1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.

Judge Jeanine of Fox lets it out here:

(more…)

Romney: More to Gain Than to Lose in Last Debate

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

Even those formerly on Obama’s foreign policy team decidedly do NOT see this as a strength for him (be sure to read that scathing rebuke!).

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.


Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

Benghazi TRUTH: Obama’s Naked Hubris Drives Continuing Cover-up (Powerful Video)


Please help us promote this information far and wide before Monday’s debate. (Thank You!)

Count on it: Before Monday night’s last presidential debate, the Obama administration and/or the State Department will release new information surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Libya in a desperate attempt to alter the truth: That their combined efforts for a month to cover-up the fact they could have prevented the assassination of an American ambassador and three other great Americans. And the fact they all knew on September 11th the attack was a pre-planned, sophisticated, terrorist attack. The desecration of Camp David has only just begun this weekend.

The history we are witnessing right now will go down in American legacy as far more serious than anything related to the Watergate scandals. Nixon’s web of deceit was bad. Obama’s is obscene! The stain he is leaving on the Office of President is deplorable. The intelligence community is only now beginning to expose Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton after they falsely and repeatedly blamed the intelligence community for promoting the “movie-trailer video” narrative.

We at MittRomneyCentral know that most of our viewers prefer brief videos. However, I believe the following video contains crucial information every American should see and understand. For if they were to take it all in, not one American voter would ever vote for Mr. Obama. Not one.

THANK YOU to Bret Baier for this comprehensive investigative reporting! If you wish to only watch the portion of video where the Obama administration’s deceit and cover-up began, see the minute descriptions outlined below the video.


I believe Bret Baier’s powerful investigative reporting is important to view from beginning to end. However, if your time is limited, you may want to start at one of these points below and watch the entire piece later:

  • Beginning to minute 21:55: Actual videos, photographs, interviews, and illustrations of what actually occurred at the consulate September 11th (Warning: some of the footage is graphic)
  • Minute 22:00: The Cover-Up Begins
  • Minute 29:15: October 8th, almost one month after the attack, we see Obama actually reveal his main message and reason for the cover-up. He is desperate to prove that he has vanquished terrorism altogether; that al Qaeda’s threat is waning. In fact, the threat of terrorism is advancing! Mr. Obama’s naked hubris in the face of obvious brazen deceit is nothing short of spectacular!
  • Minute 33:58: The election…The campaigns…Governor Romney calling President Obama out in front of 60+ million Americans in his courageous duty to expose the cover-up!

We must all do out best to expose President Obama’s deceit. Time is so limited now.

For those that are just getting to know Governor Romney or who have not had time to read his books or study his past deeply, you need to understand a very important fact about this man: Mitt Romney knows more about radical Islamic terrorism than any person to ever seek the presidency of the United States. I believe that when he is elected and in office, he will be the most prepared president to face the intense, growing threat of terrorism than any previous person to occupy the Oval Office. Look it up for yourself.

EVIDENCE?

Click here to read more.

American Exceptionalism — 2012 New Leadership Needed (30-Second Video)

THANK YOU to Special Operations for America for this powerful message!

President Mitt Romney will never bow to any other world leader.



Thank you to Kevin Anderson for bringing this video to MRC.


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Page 1 of 21123456Last »