Hack Wilson

Manti Te'o duped the worthless media.

2013-01-17T16:02:00.002-06:00

Chances are you've heard at least something about this story within the past 24 hours. Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o took the gullible, celeb happy media for a ride with a tall tale about a girlfriend who had cancer and died. The nation's reporters, people who used to get paid to ask questions, questioned nothing, and now everyone is scratching their heads when it turns out the ploy was nothing but a hoax and the dead girlfriend never even existed.

For those with no knowledge of this story it goes something like this. Manti Te'o claims he met "the most beautiful girl in the world" after a game in 2009, they exchanged numbers, and had a long distance relationship for the past 2 years through phone and Twitter exchanges. Mysteriously, the girlfriend, whom Te'o has never even met once face to face, gets leukemia and dies. Te'o never once had met her, never visited her while she was sick, and never even attended the funeral. Not ONE person in the media even asked any questions about this. What they did do is completely slobber all over this "heartwrenching" sob story, hyping the narrative because it had a good touchy feely storyline. Why should we expect anything less? This media doesn't ask questions anymore. They engage in sensationalist journalism. I know bloggers that do more research than paid reporters.

This story is less about Manti Te'o and his PR ploy for the Heisman, and more about our awful media, whose celeb slobber TMZ "reporting" has permeated the entire mainstream media.

Guns Guns Guns.

2013-01-16T17:16:00.001-06:00

You stupid Americans and your silly "right to bear arms". It's time to become good obedient citizens of the world and cast aside that old, dusty document called the Constitution. If we could only be more like France or England then we would really be much better people!

Liberals hate guns. And they hate the 2nd Amendment. They just don't have the guts to come out and say it in public. Most liberals, if given the chance, would restrict firearms ownership 100% in the United States. Seriously, why should anyone own a gun? The Army will defend our country if we are invaded, the police will protect me if my house gets broken in to, and really, why do people need to hunt those poor innocent deer anymore? We get all our food from the grocery store!

Liberals hate this country because we are different. We have always been different. And they don't like that we are different. If only we could be like more "modern", "civilized" people in Europe. They always point to Europe. Predictably Sweden and Norway, where the largest mass shooting by a single person in history took place just a few short years ago, amid crippling gun control laws mind you.

"Why should anyone own a gun?" they all ask. As if it isn't explicitly explained in the 2nd Amendment. Again, liberals are unable to grasp the entire concept of the 2nd Amendment and why it was written. The Founders sought to build a nation and a society that was different from the oppressive monarchies of centuries before. They proposed a radical idea...that the people, private citizens, retain "the right to bear arms", not to hunt, not for home defense, but as an effective buffer to possible tyranny.

For some, the possibility of a government turning tyrannical is mind boggling, but history is chock full of examples, many of which can be found by just flipping one page backward to the 20th century. And in most instances, before the government went full Hitler on its citizens, it disarmed them first!

Ottoman Turkey implemented gun control and later exterminated at least a million defenseless Armenians. The Soviets implemented gun control following the red revolution and killed upwards of 20 million citizens over the next 40 years. Hitler and his Nazi Party implemented gun control in Germany and killed at least 8 million Jews and political prisoners. Communist China implemented gun control and murdered nearly 20 million innocent civilians. Pol Pot implemented gun control in Cambodia and murdered over a million people. Another million defenseless citizens were snuffed out in Rwanda, Uganda, and Guatemala in the 1900s after gun control was passed.

"But! But! Look at Britain and Australia! They have gun control and no one is dying there!"

No one is saying that if gun control is passed it automatically turns the government into a killing machine. But the possibility will always be there, and that is exactly what the Founding Fathers DID NOT want to happen in the United States of America. We can squabble about crime statistics another time.

I am glad we are different. And I'd rather live in a society where citizens are empowered and in control than one where the government is empowered and in control. That principle of WE THE PEOPLE is uniquely American.

Why Mass Shootings Happen: A Culture in Decline

2013-01-15T16:02:00.001-06:00

There is no one single reason why we see an uptick in the frequency and severity of mass shootings these days, but if I had to lay the blame somewhere, it would be on our withering, dying culture.

A Culture Problem, Not a Gun Problem

"The most effectual way to judge a culture or society is by its art."

While the left is soiling themselves over a lack of gun control following the massacre at Sandy Hook, they conveniently overlook the 500+ gun murders last year in Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire nation. It's not a matter of guns or gun control, but the culture at large.

While Hollywood feigns anguish over the shootings, they churn out violent, blood dripping carnage and market it straight to teenagers, as if to fulfill some sort of bloodlust. Lately, they mix the blood with sex, and market it to young girls through the new vampire-erotica genre in wildly popular entertainment such as Twilight. Movies, video games, and books directed at youth are rife with absolute carnage and sexual deviance.

The mass media is at fault. For a deeper perspective on this, I highly recommend this Frontline documentary from 2001 called "The Merchants of Cool". Mass media's influence on the younger generation is criminal and perverted. They teach boys how to be vulgar, disrespectful, and lazy and they teach girls the art of promiscuity.

American youth are bombarded by the mass media on a daily basis. Where morals were once commonplace, deviance has replaced those outdated, pesky limitations on happiness as the new norm. Our societal mores were dismantled by liberalism in the 1960s. And the numbers don't lie...

- Today, more than 40% of children in the United States are born out of wedlock
- Massive increases in prescription drug addiction; 1 in 4 American women on mental health drugs
- Highest rate of divorce in the world; 50% of American marriages end in divorce
- Suicide recently surpasses car crash fatalities; 15% increase in suicide over last decade
- 86% of American teens see classmates taking drugs or drinking during school day
- United States 17th in international education ranking
- 43% of American children live in a fatherless home
- 90% of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online

The family structure has been ravaged in this country by cultural Marxists. After the school shooting in Ohio last year, I wrote this post highlighting the common denominator of broken families among school shooters. Lo and behold, Adam Lanza was no exception.

Our culture at large is becoming more deviant, and the digital age we now live in has only served to soak and dumb down our society at a much faster rate. We live in a culture that glorifies carnage and violence, encourages sexual deviance, pushes more legal and illegal drug use, and ridicules anyone who doesn't conform. Obama and the liberals can ban guns all they want. They can enact the most crippling gun control measures imaginable. But it won't stop a thing.

What the Founding Fathers said about the 2nd Amendment vs. What the liberals say about the 2nd Amendment

2013-01-14T19:04:00.000-06:00

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Liberal Version: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? I'm not sure but that was a long time ago and one of those really old words beyond our understanding. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to keep them from hunting."

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee

Liberal Version: "A militia, when properly formed...oh what the hell! We don't need a militia anymore! That's what the Army is for!"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

Liberal Version: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, unless they are conservative, or the rights of Conscience (whatever that is); or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from hunting tasty deer…"

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

Liberal Version: "To preserve safety, it is essential that the whole body of the people no longer possess guns and be taught alike, especially when young, how evil they are."

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

Liberal Version: "I don't get it?"

"No free man will ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson

Liberal Version: "No deer hunter will ever be debarred the use of arms. And really, you don't need more than 7 bullets!"

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

Liberal Version: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the government; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed, and tell the people when not to be armed; … "

I don't like citing Wikipedia, but this page has more historical quotes from various Founding Fathers on what the 2nd Amendment meant to them. Nowhere is hunting game mentioned. Fancy that!

In fact, look at the context and usage of "arms" and "armed" in the documented words of our Founding Fathers and you find it crystal clear. To be "armed" as the Founders said, had nothing to do with hunting. It didn't even have anything to do with personal home defense. It meant arming WE THE PEOPLE on a national scale against the possibility of tyranny.

Best quote for last from Mr. Thomas Paine:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

Why should anyone own an assault rifle?

2013-01-13T18:16:00.003-06:00

This gun debate is nauseating. And it's brought me out of my post-election blogging hiatus, because I can't take it anymore.

The gun debate has become so convoluted by the left it is hard to even keep your head on straight sifting through all the lib baby slobber.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the 2nd Amendment? He said, "No FREE MAN shall ever be debarred the use of arms." He didn't say "No hunter shall ever be debarred the use of arms." So before we can even begin to have a debate on assault rifles or the 2nd Amendment, first we need to realize what exactly the 2nd Amendment is for. NOWHERE in the Constitution or the writings of the Founding Fathers is hunting mentioned. The governor of New York, that liberal dunghole on the fast track to fascism, would do well to actually read the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment was written to empower the people against the possibility of tyrannical government, such as that of the British Empire in the American colonies during the Revolution. And you can bet the Founders also knew that the possibility of tyranny would be there for years to come, even far off in the future. And the government of the United States isn't exempt. When politicians and lib loonies say things like, "No one needs 20 bullets to hunt a deer!" or "I still believe in the right to bear arms for sportsmen everywhere!" what they are really saying is, "I am a complete dumbass who doesn't understand why the 2nd Amendment was written and I hope one day we can ban all guns from America forever like our socialist brothers and sisters in Europe". That turned out well in the 20th century. It is also funny hearing liberals who have no knowledge of firearms use the word "bullets".

No, the Founders could have never imagined the powerful weaponry we have today. Tell me how does this invalidate the 2nd Amendment? I'm sure the Founders couldn't have ever envisioned the internet, yet we still have free speech online. (or supposed to anyway) By liberal la la land logic, Freedom of Speech is only relative to the 18th century. That means you only have free speech by writing with a feather pen and ink on parchment, or maybe dressing up in a period attire (yes you have to wear leggings too) and shouting your opinions at a convention hall. No free speech allowed on Facebook or on a telephone. The Founders could have never imagined those things. Sounds stupid doesn't it? Well so does saying the 2nd Amendment only applied to muskets.

So the next time a liberal asks you, "Why should anyone have an assault rifle?" go ahead and ask them, "Why should you have free speech when talking on a cell phone?" They probably will be too stupid to understand it, but at least you can have a good laugh.

I'll try to post regularly like I used to. Feel free to stick around.

Well this is it.

2012-11-04T20:13:00.000-06:00

Election day is almost here. On Tuesday we go to cast our ballots for the next president. A culminating moment after a long road. A defining moment in our country's history. Will it be Barack Obama again? Or will America hand over the reigns to Mitt Romney? No one can be sure and today's polls are tighter than they have ever been.

If Obama wins, this blog will be deleted for good. If the United States puts Barack Obama back into power, I no longer have the desire to waste my time and energy blogging here. There are better things to do.

If Romney wins, I will consider staying on here a little longer.

This blog was created 3 years ago out of frustration of the inept Obama administration. I have fought hard here to highlight stories the media won't pick up on, analyze the polls, and do my part as an American to combat the progressive Obama machine. After this election, it may be time to move on.

Let's hope our country makes the right decision on Tuesday.

Union thugs in Ohio arrested for stealing Romney yard signs

2012-11-02T23:34:00.005-05:00

TOLEDO UNION LEADERS Busted Stealing Romney-Ryan Signs

This morning 4 men driving a pickup truck registered to the Sheet Metal Union, Local 33 were arrested and charged with receiving stolen property – in the form of a bed full of Romney/Ryan yard signs, some measuring as large as 4′x8′. Also in the truck were tools such as drills, which were possibly used to take the large signs down. The signs were allegedly removed from several private property and business locations across Lucas and Wood County.

Those charged with receiving stolen property included John Russell, 39, of Toledo, and Chris Monaghan 41, of Rossford, who are both listed on the Sheet Metal Workers Local 33 Web site as business agents for the union’s Toledo district.

The men were in a pickup truck registered to Local 33 in Parma, Ohio, police said.

Also cited were Corey J. Beaubien, 37, and Sean Bresler, 33, both of Toledo.

John Russell, Toledo, OH

Why is it always the Dems stealing the yard signs every election?

Yikes: Obama campaign spending money on ads...in MINNESOTA

2012-11-02T17:16:00.000-05:00

RCP: Obama Buys TV Ads in Minnesota

In a move that will spark speculation about Mitt Romney mounting a late challenge in states that had appeared out of reach, President Obama's campaign has purchased television advertisements in Minnesota, according to an Obama source.

The source described the ad buy in the Minneapolis market as “very small” and added that it is targeted primarily at voters in the neighboring swing state of Wisconsin. Minneapolis television reaches Wisconsinites who live in the northwestern part of the state, according to the source.

Gotta love it. Those Greek columns are crumbling. For the Obama campaign to be concerned enough about Minnesota, or Wisconsin, this late in the game shows how desperate they are. All this talk of Ohio deciding the election is false. There are multiple paths to victory for each candidate due to an expanded map this year and a few extra toss up states.

What liberals aren't understanding about Benghazi.

2012-11-02T16:59:00.003-05:00

This Benghazi story is drip, drip, dripping and soon the pipe will burst. Thanks to the efforts of Fox News and ABC's Jake Tapper the truth is coming out little by little and dismantling the entire story the administration has given us. But the swirl of election year politics has completely convoluted the story. This story is more about learning the truth than any political objective. There were serious security concerns at the consulate in Libya. There were calls for help denied. And 4 Americans, including an American ambassador were murdered as they fought alone. This is a big f**king deal as Joe Biden would say, but liberals continue to brush it aside, accusing conservatives of "politicizing" the story. But what the liberals aren't understanding is this isn't about toppling President Obama. This is about finding out who is responsible for the monumental intelligence failure that left Obama in the dark, if indeed that was the case. And if the Commander in Chief was left in the dark in some way, shouldn't we correct it so things like this don't happen again?

The only people politicizing this story are those on the left. The Obama administration politicized it by giving the American people a bogus story about a Youtube video for weeks after it happened, because they knew this story would obliterate their "Osama is dead" campaign slogan. The mainstream media has politicized it through weeks and weeks of AWOL inaction, when they know damn well they would be working around the clock to blow this thing wide open if it were a Republican in office. Their day will come.

Liberals need to put politics aside and get onboard now, because anyone who doesn't is going to look like a fool when the complete story finally does come out. And it will.

I'll make it easier for you. Imagine if was George W. Bush who was president during this debacle. Would you care then?

Charles Krauthammer: The Choice (must read for both sides)

2012-11-02T09:53:00.002-05:00

WaPo- The Choice

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.

It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution.

Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact.

And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society — liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary liberalism.

Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declares that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great Society, he sets about attacking its foundations — with radical tax reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially successful) attempt at restraining government growth.

Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union address) that “the era of big government is over” — and then abolishedwelfare, the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism.
In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton did to Reaganism. He made it the norm.

Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congresshe declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.
Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.

And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830 billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy.

And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness.

Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting.

An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state.

If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.

Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.

Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.

Americans donate millions to overseas natural disasters. But we never get paid back.

2012-10-31T18:39:00.003-05:00

The United States has just experienced a devastating natural disaster. Hurricane Sandy pounded the densely populated eastern seaboard, killing over 55 people and causing upwards of 50 billion dollars in damage.

Already donations are pouring in from fellow Americans, but are we receiving any donations from people overseas? Nothing notable, as usual.

Recent studies show Americans are the most charitable people in the world. According to a global survey, Americans ranked #1 worldwide in likelihood to donate to charity, volunteer, or help a stranger. And we are always there to donate massive amounts of money to overseas relief efforts.

According to CNN, American citizens donating to the Red Cross alone donated 275 million dollars to the Haiti earthquake, 127 million dollars to the Asian tsunami, and 87 million dollars to the Japanese earthquake...in just the first 7 days of those natural disasters.

During the destructive earthquake in Haiti in 2010, the United States led the way with 466.8 million in aid. By comparison, Russia donated 5.7 million dollars, Indonesia donated 1.7 million dollars, and China donated...$290,000 dollars.

The United States, through government funded relief and private donations has spearheaded every major natural disaster relief effort in the past 50 years.

Will foreign nations donate to the relief effort to Hurricane Sandy the way we do for them when they experience devastating natural disasters? Not likely. They will continue to enjoy their American made internet, Facebook, Youtube, Google, Ipods, and Ipads. All products of the American people they say they hate, and the American people that continue to help them when they are in need.

Obama team releases despicable ads.

2012-10-31T14:01:00.000-05:00

First was Lena Dunham's sex parody. Then the little children sang North Korea like praises to Dear Leader. Then the old people stated they would "burn this motherf***er to the ground" and "c**k punch Mitt Romney in his nutsack." Very, very presidential.

Meanwhile, conservatives have released this ad featuring Thomas Peterffry, a Hungarian born immigrant who explains why he is voting Republican.

The Top 5 Excuses Liberals Will Give After Obama Loses

2012-10-30T20:57:00.000-05:00

1) "America just couldn't handle a black president!"

Despite the fact 69 million Americans overwhelmingly voted for the first black president in 2008, the liberals will cry that America is a nation that harbors institutionalized racism, and just couldn't back a black president a second time.

2) "Romney bought the election with all his money!"

Even though Obama has spent more, they will claim team Romney stole the election by outspending Obama, much like they cried that Scott Walker won in Wisconsin by outspending his challenger.

3) "Obama couldn't finish strong because of Hurricane Sandy!"

Yep, Obama got tied up at the end, forced to be Commander in Chief, finally.

4) "The Republicans didn't let any minorities vote!"

Yes, the bigoted Republicans forced all the black people to show IDs they didn't have. And that's why Obama lost. Oh and did you hear about Tagg Romney and those rigged voting machines?

5) "Romney lied in the debate!"

He flip flopped in the first debate all the way to the end! He cheated!

LIVE VIDEO: Live webcam from Hurricane Sandy, Atlantic City, NJ

2012-10-28T18:38:00.001-05:00

Video streaming by Ustream

Saturday Number Crunching: Why Hope and Change is Over

2012-10-27T13:58:00.000-05:00

National Polls
Romney 50 Obama 46- Rasmussen
Romney 51 Obama 46- Gallup
Obama 47 Romney 45- IBD/TIPP (sample +7 Democrat)
Romney 49 Obama 48- ABC/WaPo
Romney 47 Obama 45- AP/Gfk

Swing state polling
Romney 51 Obama 46- Rasmussen

State Polls
North Carolina- Romney 52 Obama 46
Florida- Romney 50 Obama 48
Florida- Romney 51 Obama 46
Wisconsin- 49-49 Tie
Virginia- Romney 50 Obama 48
Virginia- 47-47 Tie
Pennsylvania- Obama 51 Romney 46
New Jersey- Obama 51 Romney 41
Nevada- Obama 50 Romney 48
Nevada- Obama 50 Romney 49
Ohio- 48-48 Tie
Ohio- Obama 50 Romney 46
Missouri- Romney 54 Obama 41
California- Obama 54 Romney 40
California- Obama 53 Romney 41
New Hampshire- Romney 50 Obama 48
Michigan- 47-47 Tie

Why Hope and Change is Over: Comparing Obama's 2012 Support to 2008 Support

* In 2008, Obama won California with 61% of the vote. He is currently polling there at 52-54%.

* In 2008, Obama won Connecticut with 61% of the vote. He is currently polling there at 49-55%.

* In 2008, Obama won Colorado with 54% of the vote. He is currently polling there at 47-51%.

* In 2008, Obama won Maine with 58% of the vote. The last poll taken there, in September showed him with 51%.

* In 2008, Obama won Michigan with 57% of the vote. He has not exceeded 52% in any recent poll, and Michigan is now a swing state.

* In 2008, Obama won New Hampshire with 54% of the vote. He is currently polling there at 47-49%.

* In 2008, Obama won New Jersey with 57% of the vote. He is currently polling there at 51-54%.

* In 2008, Obama won Iowa with 54% of the vote. He has not polled above 51% there.

* In 2008, Obama won Indiana with 50% of the vote. He has not polled above 41% there.

* In 2008, Obama won Oregon with 57% of the vote. He has not polled above 50% there.

* In 2008, Obama won Pennsylvania with 55% of the vote. He currently polling there at 48-51% and Pennsylvania is now a battleground state.

* In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with 56% of the vote. He is currently polling there at 48-51% and Wisconsin is now a battleground state.

And finally, Obama's state of Illinois, where he garnered 62% of the vote in 2008, showing Obama at 55%.

Mark Steyn: The Incredible Shrinking President

2012-10-27T10:16:00.000-05:00

The Incredible Shrinking President
Two videos distill the meaning of a campaign, and a presidency.

By Mark Steyn

‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” said Hillary Clinton. No, not the person who made the video saying that voting for Barack Obama is like losing your virginity to a really cool guy. I’ll get to that in a moment. But Secretary Clinton was talking about the fellow who made the supposedly Islamophobic video that supposedly set off the sacking of the Benghazi consulate. And, indeed, she did “have that person arrested.” By happy coincidence, his bail hearing has been set for three days after the election, by which time he will have served his purpose. These two videos — the Islamophobic one and the Obamosexual one — bookend the remarkable but wholly deserved collapse of the president’s reelection campaign.

You’ll recall that a near-month-long attempt to blame an obscure YouTube video for the murder of four Americans and the destruction of U.S. sovereign territory climaxed in the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden’s bald assertion that the administration had been going on the best intelligence it had at the time. By then, it had been confirmed that there never had been any protest against the video, and that the Obama line that Benghazi had been a spontaneous movie review that just got a little out of hand was utterly false. The only remaining question was whether the administration had knowingly lied or was merely innocently stupid. The innocent-stupidity line became harder to maintain this week after Fox News obtained State Department e-mails revealing that shortly after 4 p.m. Eastern, less than a half hour after the assault in Benghazi began, the White House situation room knew the exact nature of it.

We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. “Within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’s father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”

Why would Obama and Biden do such a thing? Because to launch a military operation against an al-Qaeda affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter — that Osama was dead and al-Qaeda was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock on the door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall-guy into custody.

Read the rest here.

President Obama is imploding right before our very eyes.

2012-10-26T13:35:00.000-05:00

Could you imagine for one second if Mitt Romney called Obama an obscene word? Or if Mitt Romney giggled and joked about Obama's name on the stump? Or if, as we have just learned today, Mitt Romney's official campaign posted a photo of Obama like this...

This is beyond desperate. It is completely childish. I would be very worried if Mitt Romney were resorting to petty attacks like this. Thankfully, Mitt Romney is the adult in the race talking about big things. Barack Obama has shrunk from the hope and change icon on 4 years ago, to a divisive, small, and bitter man.

For a sitting US President to refer to his opponent in public, out in the open, as "a bullshitter", or for him to joke for a prolonged period of time about his opponent's name, or to release a ridiculous photo like this is unprecedented in American presidential politics. Unprecedented.

DESPICABLE: Latest Obama campaign ad urges young females to lose their virginity with Barack Obama.

2012-10-25T19:23:00.002-05:00

Let's sum up Obama campaign 2012:

-Romney hates dogs! He strapped one to the top of a car!

-Romney hates gay people! He pranked a gay kid in high school one time!

-Romney caused a woman to die of cancer!
-Romney is a felon! He has never paid taxes!

-Romney supports rape because of Todd Akin!

-Romney is going to kill Big Bird!

-Romney has binders full of women!

-Romney has "Romnesia! (hehehe!)

-Romney is a "bullshitter"!

Now, the latest official Obama campaign ad parodies young women losing their virginity like voting for Obama. This is absolutely vile. How can you liberals really support this type of campaign?

Why are liberals obsessed with rape?

2012-10-25T17:02:00.001-05:00

The latest Democrat attack: "Another Republican supports rape! Rape! Rape!"

*Cue rape whistle*

In an election environment where the Democrats are getting killed on issues that matter, such as the economy and jobs, the liberals are desperately grasping for anything to save them as they tumble down the deep chasm of impending defeat.

The latest Republican who supports women getting raped is Senate candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana, who made this awful comment in a debate earlier this week...

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

The freaking horror. He actually believes all human life is a gift from God! Why! He must believe rape is a good thing! He's another old, white Republican man who hates women and supports rape! Vote Obama!

Recall how the liberals twisted the words of Todd Akin in August, after he made another similar comment on the issue of rape:

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

Todd Akin supports rape! Todd Akin hates women! Todd Akin believes in supporting the rights of the child! Vote Obama!

You see, liberals are pretty clever when it comes to these hot button issues. They know they can ask a Republican a question about rape and abortion and he will most likely answer in a truthful way that supports the rights of the conceived child, thereby allowing them a golden opportunity to completely take his words out of context and made it a nationwide scandal. With the help of the major networks, they run the story with the twist that the person in question supports rape by reporting on "So and so's controversial RAPE comments", spreading the assumption that so and so is a supporter of rape itself. Today, the front pages of ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, and the Politico all have "breaking" stories on "Richard Mourdock's controversial rape comment" but nothing on the developments in the Benghazi scandal. That is a crime.

These politicians need to understand that the media are out to get them at every turn and maybe it would be a good idea to not fall for the rape trap anymore. Don't even answer the question when it is asked.

Did Obama really call Romney a "bullshitter"?

2012-10-25T12:55:00.002-05:00

The latest headline on the Drudge Report looks like this...

Did he REALLY say that? Yes, in effect, he did. The President of the United States did an interview with Rolling Stone magazine and referred to his opponent as "a bullshitter".

Here is the full context of the "bullshitter" comment in the Rolling Stone interview:

“We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11^th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”’”

This goes well beyond unpresidential. For a sitting president to do an interview with an obsolete magazine such as Rolling Stone and characterize his opponent as a "bullshitter" is shocking, and it should deeply disturb both Republicans and Democrats alike. But look at the context. Not only did he use profanity to describe Mitt Romney. He used profanity as if the 6 year old child was the one thinking it. But can we expect anything less from the president that did a radio interview with "DJ Laz "Pimp with the Limp" in Miami? President Kardashian is almost finished. Just days to go. Keep breathing, we can do it...

Photos from the massive Romney rally at the Red Rocks Amphitheater in Denver, Colorado

2012-10-23T23:38:00.002-05:00

Denver Post: GOP nominees pack Red Rocks amphitheater to capacity

Meanwhile, further to the west in Nevada, Sandra Fluke held an Obama rally that attracted 10 people...

President Obama's immature campaign disgraces the presidency.

2012-10-23T23:21:00.000-05:00

Today, Obama went on the offensive again, saying Romney suffered from "stage 3 Romnesia". This is an attempt at snark that isn't even funny, and certainly not something a confident incumbent looking forward to the future would say. Obama's leviathan of hope and change has derailed, and we are now hearing the final release of steam as it slowly dies...

Even some liberals aren't quite content with President Obama's new Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets approach.

Says John Cook...

It should by no means be coming from the president of the United States, let alone one who promised to put away childish things. It's a dumb "zinger," transparently crafted to appeal to the Mark Halperins and Politicos of the world. That's not to say that humor has no place in political rhetoric or that Obama betrays his promise every time he deigns to insult his opponent. But to graft a pre-planned VH1 Best Week Ever-level joke onto a nationally televised discussion about life and death and our role on the world stage is scarcely less pathetic than the desperate flailings of the McCain campaign that I smugly scoffed at four years ago.

It's not just that joke. Obama has taken to using "Romnesia" to describe Romney's inability or unwillingness to hew to a policy position for more than two weeks. "He's forgetting what his own positions are, and he's betting that you will, too," Obama said at a rally in Virginia last week. "We've got to name this condition that he's going through. I think it's called 'Romnesia.'" Today, summing up the debate, Obama called Romney's performance "at least Stage 3 Romnesia."

This is very, very dumb. Maybe "Romnesia" is a funny, handy term that usefully carries an important anti-Romney message. But even if it is, it is just too juvenile and jokey to be coming from the president. He shouldn't be making jokes based on his opponent's name. That's what vice presidents are for. Put it in John Kerry's mouth. He'll say anything.

President Obama's 2012 campaign has been one of immature attempts to discredit Mitt Romney. It doesn't matter which side you are on. Obama despises Romney more than Obama supporters do and it shows. Obama's Kardashian presidency is almost over. It's time to let an adult with knowledge of the economy take charge. We haven't had that kind of leadership in a long, long time.

Obama's Death Stare

2012-10-22T22:22:00.001-05:00

Reminds me of Joe Biden's smile...

Debates are about memorable things. Obama's death stare certainly won't help. Romney continues the momentum and wins the election.

By the way Mr. President: Your snarky jab comparing the US Navy to "horses and bayonets" just lost you the state of Virginia.

Hugo Chavez all in for Obama!

2012-10-22T13:16:00.001-05:00

What does is say about you when the authoritarian leftist dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez proudly proclaims...

"If I were American, I'd vote for Obama," Chavez said in a televised interview Sunday. "And I believe that if Obama was from Caracas, he would vote for Chavez, I am positive."

That says a lot about our president. But lets not stop there. Dear Leader has also scored dynamite endorsements from other great people: CPUSA, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and Hamas.

Hollywood celebrities know what's best. Vote for Obama!

2012-10-19T12:04:00.000-05:00

The Hollywood elite have been working overtime for the Obama campaign this year, donating millions to the president, putting out countless ads telling people to vote, and offering their priceless endorsements.

While the president wines and dines with the likes of Jay-Z, Beyonce, George Clooney, Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba and others, and schmoozes them day and night at $50,000 a plate fundraisers, liberals scream and point their chubby little toddler fingers at Mitt Romney for being "out of touch".

Mitt Romney may be ultra wealthy and high class, but does that mean Barack Obama isn't? Liberals speak as if Barack Obama is a tobacco spitting, wrench turning mechanic, who wears dirty jeans every day and shops at Dollar General for groceries. Barack Obama is just as out of touch as Mitt Romney, and his constant high dollar fundraisers with Hollywood, including a glitzy Vegas get together the day after our ambassador was killed, show it.

Greg Gutfeld shows the latest Hollywood ad for Obama:

These Hollywood personalities live in a separate world, as evidenced by the issues they think are important to voters this election. Climate change? Marriage equality? Birth Control? Abortion? This Hollywood ad was directed at people who are already liberal Obama supporters...young, dumb, college women.