From Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

There is a serious problem in Washington D.C.

Sometime shortly before16 September 2012, a top-level official in the intelligence/national security/foreign policy community set up Ambassador Susan Rice for public failure and her career may well be ruined by it.

Here is what she said on 16 September to the American people on national television:

A news correspondent presented Ambassador Rice with a quote from a Libyan official that stated: “the attack was pre-planned.” She replied: “the best information and the best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a pre-planned premeditated attack,”

That was a false statement.

The best information and the best assessment that the U.S. Government had before 16 September was, in fact, that it was a pre-planned premeditated attack.

Ambassador Rice then went on to add “that what happened initially was a spontaneously reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.”

That was a false statement.

The best information and the best assessment that the U.S. Government had before 16 September was that there was no spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.

The American people were deliberately deceived into believing that a false mythology was true and the truth was false.

Finding out how and why this happened is simple.

Investigator One starts with Susan Rice and asks the five-W’s regarding the false talking pointing she gave the American people. If she said she did it then you know the truth. If not, Investigator One moves on the person or persons who gave Rice the false talking points and asks them the five-W’s and so on.

Investigator Two starts with the CIA report that described the tragedy in Benghazi as a terrorist attack and mentioned al Qaeda and visits the people on the distribution list and asks the five-W’s regarding the false talking points presented by Ambassador Rice.

We are talking about a very small number of very senior government officials so in short order, Investigator One and Investigator Two meet at the source of the fabrication and the mystery is solved.

It does not take ten weeks or even ten days to get to the truth. I could be done in ten hours of walking the halls, knocking on doors, making phone calls and sending e-mails. If necessary, an investigator may have to drive to someone’s building to talk, but it should and could have been done very quickly.

The only possible reason why the truth is not known by now is if there is a COVER-UP going on.

Further, this particular cover-up can have only succeeded this long if it is being directed from very high up in the food chain.

As the CIA has been cleared and the Pentagon and NSA played no substantial role, there are really only three places left: the National Security Advisor or his most senior deputies, the Secretary of State or her most senior deputies, the Director of National Intelligence or his senior deputies.

Ambassador Rice really only faces one remote but devastating risk: She knows who gave her the false information that was used to mislead the American people but she is an active participant in the cover-up and will not divulge the truth. If that is the case then her career is over.

If it is not the case then a good American had been set up for failure by a very senior government official or officials. That person or persons need to be identified as quickly as possible and held accountable for their actions. It is time to send out the folks with the badges and those "here are your rights" cards and get to the bottom of this debacle.

The cover-up is always worse than the initial mistake.

The End of the Arab Spring in Egypt

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

On 4 June 2009, President Obama made an historic speech at Cairo University. Today, his remarks seem tragically prescient. On that day he said:

"...there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.

So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: 

You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. 

Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy."

Regrettably, that the situation we face today in Egypt: Morsi has become a petty dictator who only advocated for democracy while he was out of power. "President" Morsi has ruthlessly and systematically dismantled Egyptian democracy.

One sad thing is certain. Egypt saw its last free and fair election, perhaps for a generation or more. From now, the "votes" will reflect the will of Morsi and his minions. 

Political freedom is dead in Egypt. 

How ironic that Morsi will oversee the trials of leaders of the Mubarak regime. Their crimes are now his crimes. What justice they are given will also represent the injustice of the Morsi regime.

The dream is over. Another self-consumed authoritarian with an unlimited thirst for power now rules. May God have mercy on the people of Egypt for the Morsi regime certainly will not.

Contributed by Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

What Fiscal Cliff... 

All,

We keep hearing about the “fiscal cliff.” Here is my take: The only fiscal cliff America is facing is the one linked to the deficit that is on track to pass $17,000,000,000,000.00 before this time next year.

 

What America needs to do is to embrace the Budget Control Act of 2011. It is a balanced approach to a tough issue. It includes both raising taxes to increase revenues while cutting spending to reduce expenditures. That is the path to success.

 

The Budget Control Act of 2011 - signed by the President - was a bipartisan agreement and, in the name of bipartisanship, everyone should reluctantly and regretfully honor it.

 

It passed the House with 95 Democratic and 174 Republican votes

 

It passed the Senate with 45 Democratic and 28 Republican votes.

 

The President signed it into law on 3 August 2011.

 

Nothing could be more bipartisan. 

 

Even the name sounds great: The Budget Control Act.

The real agenda item is to pass the Bowles-Simpson compromise.

 

Mike

... Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Why The Election Does Not Matter 

(I have been waiting for two months for the election to be over to send this)

 We are about to witness the peak in the quality of Government services provided to Americans this decade, a process that began eighty years ago. Why? Because the Government entitlement programs – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamp Program, Affordable Health Care Act – are fiscally untenable and it is utterly impossible to raise federal taxes high enough to keep up with the increasing costs of these programs.

The Global Competiveness Report was recently issued and America was ranked in seventh place. In 2008-2009, the United States was still ranked number one. We have fallen for the last four years, an unprecedented decline by the world’s largest economy. Why? Our national debt.  It is NOT Obama’s debt alone – it is a joint House-Senate-White House-Republican-Democrat problem.

Here are the hard facts. Social Security in its current form is going broke. The situation facing Medicare/Medicaid is worse. Add in the expanding Federal Food Stamp Program and the Affordable Health Care Act and the rate of Federal spending on entitlements becomes unsustainable. The world realizes our government cannot keep spending over $1,000,000,000,000.00 per year more than it takes in. At some point in the near future everything else will become irrelevant. It will not matter who is the House Speaker, who controls the Senate, which party gains the White House or even who sits on the Supreme Court bench. Economic reality will trump politics.

The reaction by Americans broadly falls into four groups. A large block listens to the “don’t worry - be happy” politicians that long ago learned you can get an “economic expert” to say almost anything. A second group admits to a problem, but thinks the cure will be painless, like taxing the rich or cutting waste in government. Sadly, even if we tax people according to President Obama and eliminate Federal agencies like Ron Paul advocates, it will not significantly reduce the deficit. Both options are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. A third group neither understands nor cares to understand the numbers. To them, entitlements are a right and they deserve them. Finally, there is a dour group that realizes real solutions are painful. They understand that unaddressed “bubbles” do not go away they POP!

 In the 1920’s, Wall Street created a “stock bubble” that burst in 1929, wiping out over three decades of gains and ushering in the Great Depression. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s, as Morgenson and Rosner convincingly proved, quasi-Federal agencies such as the Federal Reserve (in Boston) and Government-Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided to socially engineer the housing mortgage sector of the economy and when that “credit bubble” burst in 2007, we got the Great Recession. The “entitlement bubble” is next and lies squarely in Washington. At some point, the world's bond buyers will walk away from US debt as being too risky; the “entitlement bubble” will pop just like 1929 and 2007. There will be a crash. How bad will it be? It will probably be worse than the Great Recession but not as bad as the Great Depression.

The United States will revive. Here is why: We are not a socialist state. The private sector will be harmed, but will survive and become the engine for growth. When the Federal spending madness ends, we will still have fifty state governments, and only a few operate like Illinois. Local governments will also carry on. They are learning from the mistakes of Vallejo, San Bernardino and Stockton in California. That is what makes America fundamentally different from the Greece’s of the world. Our national government can do a lot of harm, but we still have our economic freedoms and that means we have the political means to clean up the mess that Washington made.

I smell that same rat... I know so many libs that have never gotten over the Bush/Gore contest... the mantra is that the election was stolen. Someone is setting this one up. Can you see it... like the Arab world finding that the coalition had entered Bagdad very forcefully and they were utterly shocked. They had heard the stream coming from Bagdad Bob that our forces were receiving a decimating right punch from Saddam... they believed it. The libs believe the polls as unbalanced (the polls) as they are... tomorrow night they'll begin howling, "How could Mitt have won so handily after all the polls said the race was even? The election was stolen!" A set up, pure Chicago!

BH

On FNC’s “Special Report” Monday night, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume said that many mainstream polls — which appear to indicate President Barack Obama will win a second term — may be fundamentally flawed.

“My sense about this is fairly simple,” Hume said. “We’re looking at a national race, which is, for all intents and purposes, tied. We are looking at a set of state polls in the battleground states that suggests President Obama is leading — he is leading in most of these polls. And most reporters would look at that and say, ‘Well, if that’s the case, it looks like President Obama is going to win.’ And that is what a lot of people think. That is kind of the conventional wisdom.”

“However, a number of those polls have a remarkably large number of Democrats in the sample — more Democrats, in some cases, than turned out by percentage on Election Day four years ago, which was a big year for the Democrats,” Hume continued. “They don’t expect to have as big a year. So, those polls are troubling. Now, it would be unprecedented for this many polls reflecting a similar outcome to be wrong, which is why I think people are reluctant to draw that conclusion. But there’s something wrong here.”

Help save California... one brick at a time, let's rebuild this place... let's start here!

The California Republican Party has officially opposed Governor Jerry Brown’s tax increase measures, which will appear on the November ballot during its annual Fall Convention this weekend.

Here is a complete list of positions taken by the California Republican Party during its Fall Convention:

Proposition 30: OPPOSE… Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. 

Proposition 31: SUPPORT… State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute (Two-year state budget cycle).

Proposition 32: SUPPORT… Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 33: SUPPORT… Changes Law to Allow Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 34: OPPOSE… Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 35: SUPPORT… Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 36: OPPOSE… Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 37: OPPOSE… Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 38: OPPOSE… Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 39: OPPOSE…Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficient Funding. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 40: SUPPORT… Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Dick Morris...

Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.

As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.

The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.
His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).

Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.

And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.

In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.

Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?

Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.

The impact on Senate races could be profound. Give the GOP easy pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota. Wisconsin has been a roller coaster. Once an easy win for Republican Tommy Thompson, then a likely loss as Democrat Tammy Baldwin caught up, and now Republican again, it will probably be a third pickup. Romney’s surge in Virginia is propelling George Allen to a good lead for the first time all campaign. In Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg holds and has held for some time a small lead over Democrat incumbent Jon Tester. And, in Pennsylvania, Smith has powered his campaign to a small lead over Democrat Bob Casey Jr.

The GOP now leads in these six takeaways. But it is also within easy striking distance in Ohio and Florida, where incumbents are under 50 percent and Republican challengers Connie Mack (Fla.) and Josh Mandel (Ohio) are only a few points behind. It may even be possible to entertain daydreams of Rhode Island (Barry Hinckley) and New Jersey (Joe Kyrillos) going Republican.

Republican losses? Look for a giveback in Maine and possibly in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock had established a 5-point lead over Democrat Joe Donnelly. But his comments about rape knocked him back to a tie. With Romney carrying the state by 15 points, however, Mourdock could still make it. In Massachusetts, Brown has been in hand-to-hand combat with Elizabeth Warren. Down by five a few days ago, he’s now tied, but the undecided usually goes against the incumbent.

The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite.

Barack Obama’s parting gift to the Democratic Party.

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced, Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, Revolt!: How To Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs — A Patriot’s Guide, go to dickmorris.com.

Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.

But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick.

Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.

That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.

That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.

The Obama campaign strategy, from the beginning, has recognized these handicaps, running barrages of early anti-Romney ads in states that Obama carried narrowly. But other states, not so heavily barraged, have come into contention.

Which candidate will get the electoral votes of the target states? I'll go out on a limb and predict them, in ascending order of 2008 Obama percentages -- fully aware that I'm likely to get some wrong.

Indiana (11 electoral votes). Uncontested. Romney.

North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Obama has abandoned this target. Romney.

Florida (29). The biggest target state has trended Romney since the Denver debate. I don't see any segment of the electorate favoring Obama more than in 2008, and I see some (South Florida Jews) favoring him less. Romney.

Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

Virginia (13). Post-debate polling mildly favors Romney, and early voting is way down in heavily Democratic Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk. Northern Virginia Asians may trend Romney. Romney.

Colorado (9). Unlike 2008, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, and more Republicans than Democrats have voted early. The Republican trend in 2010 was squandered by weak candidates for governor and senator. Not this time. Romney.

Iowa (6). The unexpected Romney endorsements by the Des Moines Register and three other newspapers gave voice to buyer's remorse in a state Obama carried by 10 points. Democrats' traditional margin in early voting has declined. Romney.

Minnesota (10). A surprise last-minute media buy for the Romney campaign. But probably a bridge too far. Obama.

New Hampshire (4). Polls are very tight here. I think superior Republican intensity will prevail. Romney.

Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal Western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and, as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.

Nevada (6). Democratic early-voting turnout is down from 2008 in Las Vegas' Clark County, 70 percent of the state. But the casino unions' turnout machine on Election Day re-elected an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, and I think they'll get enough Latinos and Filipinos out this time. Obama.

Wisconsin (10). Recent polling is discouraging for Republicans. But Gov. Scott Walker handily survived the recall effort in June with a great organizational push. Democrats depend heavily on margins in inner-city Milwaukee (population down) and the Madison university community. But early voting is down in university towns in other states. The Obama campaign is prepared to turn out a big student vote, but you don't see many Obama signs on campuses. Romney.

Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), New Jersey (14). Uncontested. Obama.

Michigan (16). Romney chose Pennsylvania, where there's no auto bailout issue. Obama.

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.

Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

Federal employees...

The only ones that showed up...

A note from Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

The Heroes at Benghazi, 9/11 2012 (two posts)

All,

The report that is unofficially coming out of the Pentagon today, if accurate, is frustrating, heartbreaking and heroic.

The main point is that the two former Navy SEALS who died could have stayed safe and sound at a nearby secure CIA facility in Benghazi.

After reporting the attack at the Consulate up the chain, the two were ordered repeatedly by their superiors to "stand down" and not go back to the Benghazi Consulate.

They disobeyed orders and went in and rescued several Americans trapped there.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was not amongst them. Without hesitation, they returned to try to get him out and died during that attempt.

They sacrificed their lives so others might live and acted above and beyond the call of duty.  They gave the last full measure of devotion to their country.

Added post...

Next, my post was to honor heroes, like Chris Stevens, not to point fingers.

That the CIA chain of command told two national heroes to "stand down" was a justified call in a tough situation. They faced a very dangerous situation and endorsing two, albeit extraordinary, Americans to embark on an extremely dangerous mission was not an act of cowardice or misjudgment. It reflected a true appreciation of the value of the lives of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

That two superior and veteran operators of the caliber of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods decided to push forward despite the odds is what made their actions above an beyond the call of duty.

I find myself in the fundamentally consistent yet superficially contradictory position of strongly supporting the decision of their superiors to have them “stand down” and their personal decision to push into the fight.

The distinctions in making the hard decisions between mission accomplishment and looking out for your men for the leader compared to the guys at “the pointy end of the spear” can, and on this occasion was, a gulf of vast dimensions.

The decision-makers sitting safe and sound were faced with a multitude of information that could only be described as chaotic. They knew that telling Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods to go forward was an unacceptable risk for those two tremendous Americans. They said: “stand down.”

For Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, they saw the same chaos and risks with the added crystal clear knowledge that they and they alone could save the lives of others. They made their decision.

That is what made their actions so special – the resolute decision of sacrifice and the uncommon valor in the face of almost certain death.

Semper Fi,

Mike 

Strategies for the Stretch Run to Nov. 6

Over the last 40 national surveys, Mr. Romney is at or above 50% in 11, with Mr. Obama at or above 50% in one

By KARL ROVE, Wall Street Journal

This year's presidential election was transformed between the first debate's opening statements in Denver and the closing statements in Boca Raton. As a result, most of the negative impressions created by the Obama campaign's five-month, $300-million television advertising barrage were destroyed. Seen unfiltered, Gov. Mitt Romney came across as an earnest, straightforward, thoughtful conservative with a concrete plan for the nation's future.

Wednesday's RealClearPolitics.com average of polls showed Mr. Romney with 48% support to President Barack Obama's 47.1%. On the eve of the Denver debate, Mr. Romney had 46% and Mr. Obama 49.1%.

More revealing, in the past week's 40 national surveys, Mr. Romney was at or above 50% in 11, with Mr. Obama at or above 50% in one. Mr. Romney leads 48.9% to 46.7% in an average of these surveys. At this same point in 2004, President George W. Bush led Sen. John Kerry in this composite average, 48.9% to 45.8%.

So what are each candidate's strategies for the stretch run?

New television spots reveal the Romney campaign's closing message. One says another four years for Mr. Obama would mean more debt, up to 20 million people losing their employer-provided health insurance, higher taxes, rising energy prices and Medicare cuts. Other ads emphasize Mr. Romney has a plan for jobs and showcase his success as a Republican governor in a Democratic state.

This three-part strategy—matter-of-factly indict Mr. Obama's failed policies, highlight a common-sense conservative agenda to create jobs and growth, and stress Mr. Romney's capacity to provide bipartisan leadership—was evident in all three of his debate performances.

The Obama campaign strategy also has three elements. The first was embodied in a glossy 20-page pamphlet issued Tuesday, entitled "The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs & Middle-Class Security." Mr. Obama is distributing 3.5 million copies of it nationwide but it is too late: Voters concluded months ago that he lacks a forward-looking program. The pamphlet itself is a second-rate repackaging of Mr. Obama's lackluster convention speech and has been rightly dismissed by many in the press as a PR ploy. Even an accompanying TV ad swing won't rescue Mr. Obama.

The second strategic thrust of the Obama message was exemplified in three TV ads released on Tuesday. They warn that Mr. Romney would end all abortion, gut Medicare, and undermine education. But this repeats months of similar messaging, so it is hard to believe that it will undo Mr. Romney's current momentum.

The final element of Mr. Obama's strategy is to constantly question Mr. Romney's truthfulness. The president says his opponent suffers from "stage-three Romnesia," as if the GOP challenger were a disease. While calling his opponent a liar thrills partisans, Mr. Obama risks turning off swing voters, especially since Mr. Romney's favorability rating is now higher than his own.

In an Oct. 21 Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun poll of registered voters, Mr. Romney was viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 39%, up from 41% favorable and 40% unfavorable on Sept. 16.

The president's problem remains the economy. Facts belie his argument that it is largely healed. Rather, it is producing jobs at a slower rate than last year, generating an average of 131,000 a month so far in 2012. At that rate, it will take three years just to get employment back where it was when the recession started, 138 million. Meanwhile, approximately four million to five million more Americans will have entered the workforce without jobs. Voters are uneasy and disapprove of Mr. Obama's economic stewardship.

This race will be close, depending on a few states. The good news for Mr. Romney is that the ones he needs are breaking his way. He leads in most recent polls in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado.

That puts the former Massachusetts governor at 261 in the Electoral College with Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the great prize, Ohio, still up for grabs. In those states, Mr. Obama has at best a thin edge, while Mr. Romney has momentum, a stronger argument, and time to grab the nine additional electoral votes he needs.

An incumbent president's final number in opinion polls is often his Election Day share of his vote. Undecided voters generally swing the challenger's way. So if Mr. Obama goes into Nov. 6 below 50% in these states—as he now is in almost every one—he is likely to lose them and his chance at a second term.

Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads.

Economics from an expert, Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

The Deficit and Recent Presidents

All,

You will hear a lot about the Federal deficit over the next few weeks. Here are some numbers:

When President Clinton handed over the reins to President Bush, the Federal deficit stood at $5.7 Trillion. President Clinton oversaw the slowest growth in the deficit in the last several decades.

Eight years later, President Bush handed President Obama a $10.3 Trillion deficit. The 9/11 attacks, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the added cost of creating the Department of Homeland Security, etc, all led to higher spending. 

Also, in the closing months of Bush Administration the housing bubble burst, that led to the TARP bailouts for banks and GM plus bailouts for AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Taken together, the bailouts accounted for about $630 Billion of the $4.6 Trillion deficit increase during the eight years under President Bush.

Just under four years later, the Federal deficit stands at $16.2 Trillion.

Mike

Allen West, Florida Congressman (FLA 22).... I had the honor to be his "graphics guy" during his last election. He gave a typically strong speech last Saturday in Temecula, CA...

Watch the YouTube video  here http://youtu.be/TvppF6b6Lu4

Contributed by Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

New Job Numbers

All,

Most were happily surprised at the drop in unemployment rate, while some others were suspicious about the rate going below 8% right as the election draws near.

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories and do not believe in one now. Nonetheless, someone has to explain how this happened and why this is good news. Here is why:

It has been bantered about that the decrease is due to a rise in involuntary part-time employment. That is dubious news as the number is seldom discussed and an INCREASE had traditionally been seen as BAD not good news (see: http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/110482/). 

Additionally, a jobs number in the range of 114,000, the September number, is NOT good.

(see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/business/economy/us-added-only-115000-jobs-in-april-rate-is-8-1.html?pagewanted=all).

The figure of 300,000 to 400,000 jobs per month is considered "robust growth." (see: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/04/march-job-gains-good-but-market-may-have-hit-plateau?vwo=ecfb2).

Together, the numbers do not make a lot of sense:

2012 Month Unemployment Rate New Jobs Created  Involuntary Part-time Employment

April   8.1% 115,000 7.7 million

May   8.2% 69,000 8.1 million

June   8.2% 80,000 8.2 million

July   8.3% 163,000 8.25 million

August   8.1% 96,000 8.03 million

September   7.8%        114,000          8.61 million

The bottom line is that two pieces of bad news (weak job creation and an increase in involuntary part-time employment) is double bad news while the declining unemployment rate is good news.

But what does it all mean?

Mike

Great contribution from Mike Walker, Col USMC (retired)

Redistribution Sucks!

In 1998, Barak Obama said: "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."

Mr. President, I am sorry. Whoever introduced you to stale and flawed redistribution theory sold you a pack of lies.

Redistribution Is Fundamentally Unfair

Let us take Prudent Prudence and Fast Eddy. Both worked for forty years and earned an average of $30,000 per year. Prudence saved an average of $3,000 per year (at 5% annual interest) while Eddy spent his money as quickly as he earned it. Both then retired. Prudent Prudence now has hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings, but Fast Eddie has none. Gee, its time for governmental intervention!

Some argue that Eddy has a right to the same financial “shot” at retirement as Prudence. So, the government will redistribute Prudence’s money. Everything up to $250,000 Prudence can keep. The rest goes to Eddy. We leave our twosome with Prudence sitting at the kitchen table and sighing while crossing out items on her “Things I always wanted to do when retired” list while Fast Eddy is spending his newfound wealth on a celebration party at the beach. Surf’s up, Dude!

Redistribution Is Bad Policy

Even within the government systems lauded by President Obama, there are better solutions than redistribution. California faced the problem of unequal school funding and opted NOT to redistribute monies from rich to poor schools. Instead, it took the path of equalization, ensuring the poorest school was funded at around 93% of the richest. Why not redistribute the funding to make it 100%? Two reasons, first, redistribution leads to stagnation; it would have cut off an important venue for local level growth and improvement. Second, equalization ensured that all the schools would be on an upward path of fiscal support.

The people paying school taxes in the top 7%, like La Jolla, Newport Beach and Marin County, were going to help their kids, either by staying inside the government system (through State equalization) or (in the case of redistribution) from the outside by opting for private tutoring, out-of-school enrichment programs and the like. By keeping them inside the government system, those communities increased the average spending for California students. When that average went up, poor school districts, like mine, received increases in State equalization funding. Everybody benefited. That was the goal. That, however, is NOT the goal of redistribution, which gets us to the third and final point.

Redistribution Is All About Punishment

That is the logic behind the President’s remarks about not caring if giving tax breaks to high income earners and successful small businesses gets the economy going again. For President Obama, it’s about fairness defined by redistribution. That is regrettable. Redistribution has never been about doing the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans. It has always been about punishing class enemies. Redistribution advocates do not care if that extremist philosophy results in a stagnant economy, crippling debt growing at over one trillion dollars per year and millions of people out of work.

At its core, redistribution is about punishing Americans. Nothing else really matters. Mr. President, the best thing is to fuggitaboutit!

Jimmie Obama....

The case against reelection

By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas.

The stewardship case is pretty straightforward: the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutive months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of an additional $5 trillion of accumulated debt.

The ideological case is also simple. Just play in toto (and therefore in context) Obama’s Roanoke riff telling small-business owners: “You didn’t build that.” Real credit for your success belongs not to you — you think you did well because of your smarts and sweat? he asked mockingly — but to government that built the infrastructure without which you would have nothing.

Play it. Then ask: Is that the governing philosophy you want for this nation?

Mitt Romney’s preferred argument, however, is stewardship. Are you better off today than you were $5 trillion ago? Look at the wreckage around you. This presidency is a failure. I’m a successful businessman. I know how to fix things. Elect me, etc. etc.

Easy peasy, but highly risky. If you run against Obama’s performance in contrast to your own competence, you stake your case on persona. Is that how you want to compete against an opponent who is not just more likable and immeasurably cooler but spending millions to paint you as an unfeeling, out-of-touch, job-killing, private-equity plutocrat?

The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals, it is also explanatory. It underpins the stewardship argument. Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.

What program? Obama laid it out boldly in a series of major addresses during the first months of his presidency. The roots of the nation’s crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamental change was required. He had come to deliver it. Hence his signature legislation:

First, the $831 billion stimulus that was going to “reinvest” in America and bring unemployment below 6 percent. We know about the unemployment. And the investment? Obama loves to cite great federal projects such as the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system. Fine. Name one thing of any note created by Obama’s Niagara of borrowed money. A modernized electric grid? Ports dredged to receive the larger ships soon to traverse a widened Panama Canal? Nothing of the sort. Solyndra, anyone?

Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: “Put simply,” he said, “our health-care problem is our deficit problem” — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.

Except that Obamacare adds to spending. The Congressional Budget Office reports that Obamacare will incur $1.68 trillion of new expenditures in its first decade. To say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouraging hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined.

The third part of Obama’s promised transformation was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat. Regulations that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline (Keystone) rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico that a federal judge severely criticized as illegal.

That was the program — now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it. Obamacare got exactly two lines in this year’s State of the Union address. Seen any ads touting the stimulus? The drilling moratorium? Keystone?

Ideas matter. The 2010 election, the most ideological since 1980, saw the voters resoundingly reject a Democratic Party that was relentlessly expanding the power, spending, scope and reach of government.

It’s worse now. Those who have struggled to create a family business, a corner restaurant, a medical practice won’t take kindly to being told that their success is a result of government-built roads and bridges.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, “This election is not about ideology; it’s about competence.” He lost. If Republicans want to win, Obama’s deeply revealing, teleprompter-free you-didn’t-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day. The third consecutive summer-of-recovery-that-never-came is attributable not just to Obama being in over his head but, even more important, to what’s in his head: a government-centered vision of the economy and society, and the policies that flow from it.

Four years of that and this is what you get.

Make the case and you win the White House.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Jane, we know why you were there and who your heroes were too... and what you were fighting for!

Hmmmmm, a word from Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Marines,

Finishing up my course on Chinese Military History. Thought you might like to read a snippet of what the Chinese historians are now writing about the Vietnam War:

         “The official DRV claim was 4,154 U.S. planes downed during the war. The official number recorded by the United States is 1,096. It is impossible to reconcile this difference. However, factors which led to such disparity deserve to be noted. First, the defending sides, including North Vietnamese and Chinese AAA units, and Soviet SAM units, on occasion might all claim to have shot down the same enemy plane. Second, Hanoi might have lumped all downed and damaged planes together in its claims. Finally, Hanoi and the DRV leaders inflated claims to improve morale. Nevertheless, the Chinese record is impressive. During three years and nine months in North Vietnam, all Chinese anti-aircraft artillery divisions, together with those units assigned to protect engineering troops, fought 2,153 engagements. They shot down 1,707 U.S. planes and damaged 1,608, while capturing 42 American pilots.

         Between 1965 and 1969 a total of 320,000 Chinese troops served in North Vietnam, and the greatest number at any one time there was 170,000. More than 1,100 Chinese died and 4,300 were wounded in Vietnam. A small number of Chinese sacrifices, as Le Duan once noted, could save two or three million Vietnamese. Hanoi's leaders might not have been completely satisfied with Beijing's support, but they acknowledged that Vietnam could not have succeeded without the vast rear of China and its support.” 

Semper Fi,

Mike