A Royal Funk

            It is the day after the rout, and I have been in an all-day funk. I simply cannot believe that my fellow Americans re-elected the worst president of my lifetime.

            Obamacare, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, sustained unemployment, massive deficits, falling wages, depressed housing, high taxes, failed energy policy, failed economic policiy, failed Middle East policy, failure everywhere. What does it take to recognize incompetence? Yet, there they were: the adoring crowds, tears of joy steaming down their faces.
            White males, married women, seniors, Evangelicals, plus most of the people in the country's red-colored geography voted Republican. But they were no match for the massive one-sided turnout in the blue states of the Northeast, the Rust Belt, and the West Coast. We have seen it before: there are two Americas. Except for a handful of battleground states, both red and blue states went to huge majorities.
            How do we explain a solid Republican majority in the House and a preponderance of Republicans in governors' mansions, facing an impregnable Democratic majority in the Senate and a plurality of blue voters for the presidency? Is the nation doomed  by unbreachable divisions?
            Will it ever change? What are chances the two extremes will come together to solve the huge problems we face? On the one hand we have a president who has divided the country by demonizing the rich to justify his redistributive policies and create a permanent dependent class of reliable voters. On the other hand, we have a Republican Establishment that cannot shake the image that it spurns the pleas of immigrants, unmarried women, and the poor, while  favoring millionaires and fat cats on Wall Street. This is not a formula for comity.
            The last four years have not been good. But they will look great compared to what is coming. We are faced with Taxmageddon, Sequestration, rising taxes, increased spending, more business-killing regulations, a $20 trillion debt, and an unrelenting march to a European-style socialism. Yet, the media, with few exceptions, will continue to mute its criticism. It will not find fault with the Senate nor the White House. Instead, with Bush fading in the distance, it will blame the intransigence of the House and the greed of special interests as we sink into a longer and deeper recession.
            Until yesterday I was an optimist. Today?

A Tale of Two Scandals

            We are witnessing two enormous scandals that should be having a direct bearing on the outcome of this election but are not.

            The first scandal is the Benghazi cover-up. The facts are in. Our Libyan ambassador was denied the adequate protection that he asked for repeatedly before the anniversary of 9/11. Then, when the attack on our consulate came and our personnel on the ground pleaded for help, it was denied three times. Consequently, our ambassador and three other brave Americans died.
            The decision to deny additional security forces before 9/11 was made by the State Department.  Secretary Clinton has accepted responsibility. But the denial of assistance during the attack had to have been made by the President. He and his security advisors knew in real time what was happening on the ground; they also had the military forces ready to intervene. But the President said no. Yet, when asked directly whether he had made that call, he refused to answer.
            As Senator McCain has said, this was either a case of incompetence or a cover-up for political purposes. I think it was both. Worse, it was a gross dereliction of duty by the President of the United States whose first obligation is the protection of American citizens. Muslim terrorists murdered four Americans in Benghazi, but blood in on the hands of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and our military and intelligence people as well. This is a scandal of unparalleled dimensions.
            The second scandal is the refusal of mainstream media to cover this story. Fox News sits virtually alone in doggedly pursuing the facts and exposing the culpability of the White House. Unsurprisingly, all attempts by Fox News to interview  key players in this affair have been denied. As an example close to home, The Virginian-Pilot, southeastern Virginia's major newspaper, has not printed a single word on this scandal since Fox News broke the story. Nothing. Not one word.
            There is no denying that major newspaper and television outlets are in the tank for Barack Obama. This is not surprising, since some 85% of their so-called journalists admit to favoring liberal candidates. But is there no limit to liberal bias? What ever happened to journalism's integrity, its fairness, its search for the truth? When media's principles are corrupted for political gain, whom can we turn to for honest reporting?
            Who is more culpable? The one with blood on his hands? Or the one who witnesses the crime and says nothing?

Lies and Deceit

            Hypocrisy, duplicity, deceit, fraud, spin, lies. I cannot pick out a single word that fully describes the Obama administration's behavior over the Benghazi incident. I would only add the word chutzpah after listening to President Obama take offense at any suggestion that his administration was playing politics.

            Here's how I see it. The President was so busy campaigning that he never took an interest in the signs of a surging Al-Qaida in Libya. He may have been told of security issues at the embassy and the consulate, but he wasn't listening. When his neglect blew up in his face on 9/11, his first instinct was to insulate himself from political fallout. Let the cover-up begin.
            It is now clear that the President, by his own admission in the second debate, knew that  the killings in Benghazi were the result of a planned  terrorist attack. Yet, he permitted, and may personally have directed, Ambassador Rice and Jay Carney to lie about it. For weeks he himself failed to acknowledge the truth by suggesting on The View and David Letterman as well as to the United Nations that anger over a video was the cause of spontaneous uprisings all over the world as well as the murders in Benghazi. This was deceit on an international scale.
            Why would the President promote such falsehoods? Let's look at the circumstances. The President for months had been bragging that Osama was dead and Al-Qaida  was on the run. Spiking the football so often on bin-Laden is much more likely to have enraged Muslims than a video that nobody had seen or known about until our embassy in Cairo apologized for it. Blaming the video was a deceitful ploy to distract us from the fact that Al-Qaida was resurgent all over the world and especially in Libya. This truth, if admitted by Obama, would have been damaging to his re-election. Hence, the full-blown campaign of spin and lies by Obama's team.
            Blame the intelligence community for incomplete reporting; blame the State Department for refusing to increase security; blame Romney for politicizing the issue; blame the video; blame freedom of speech. But note that in the second debate the President did not identify the terrorists as Muslim extremists. And note that he no longer mentions in his stump speeches that Al-Qaida is on the run. Why? Because he would have to admit that his policies on the Middle East have been an abject failure. He would have to admit that Al-Qaida is stronger than ever, that his Arab Spring has been a capitulation to the Muslim Brotherhood, that any hopes for democracy in the area are fading in the face of an inexorably ascendant Sharia rule.
            In short, our president, a man who has publicly professed his Islamic faith, cannot bring himself to believe that real power in the Muslim world is gradually being ceded to extremists who want to kill us. Thus, he cannot take responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. And he lacks the moral fiber to tell the truth to an enlightened electorate ready to pull the voting booth lever on his failed presidency.

Shamful

            Benghazi has dominated the news over the last few weeks and is likely to continue to grab headlines until the elections. It is clear that the administration has not been honest with the American people and is hoping that the whole story will not get out before voters go to the polls.

            While Obama's campaign was quick to accuse Romney of politicizing the issue, it has been shameless in spinning, obfuscating, and flat-out lying to protect the President. But it is the president himself who has been the worst offender.
            On the day after the 9/11 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including our Ambassador,  top members of the intelligence community came together at the White House to present a brief on the previous day's tragedy. President Obama did not even bother to attend. Instead, he boarded Air Force One to fly to Las Vegas for a fund-raiser.
            This, to me, is the most egregious dereliction of duty by a president in my lifetime. It is the first duty of a president to protect the country and its citizens. Obama has piously asserted that United States ambassadors are his people: as he has said, he appoints them, he knows them, he knows their families. Yet, Ambassador Stevens's body wasn't even cold when Obama disdained to question his intelligence experts about what happened. His priority was to win the election, and nothing could get in the way of a fund-raiser.
            President Obama has spent the last six months flying all over the country to make campaign speeches and collect money for his election coffers. He has made over 200 of these trips, more than any other president in history. All the while, he has missed almost all of his intelligence briefings and been mostly absent from the White House. How can he claim to have been working for the American people when his all-consuming priority has clearly been his re-election?
            Some things can be forgiven. President Obama's shameful choice on 9/12 is not one of them.

           

He's No Roosevelt

            It is often said that history repeats itself. If this old saw is true, we should search the past for the wisdom necessary to deal with perilous times such as these.

            I have long been an admirer of Winston Churchill, who led the British effort to resist and eventually to defeat Hitler. One of his greatest achievements was to persuade Franklin
Delano Roosevelt to join him in that effort. It is not an exaggeration to say that these two men saved the world.
            A study of the cooperation between these two giants to defeat Nazism can provide useful lessons for us today. The circumstances parallel those of today in a striking yet alarming way.
            In 1940 Britain stood alone among Western European powers against a Germany that had swept all military resistance off the map. In fact, Britain faced imminent invasion itself. But Hitler chose to invade Russia instead. This gave Churchill the time he needed to look to America for the arms and supplies he needed to build up Britain's defenses. FDR found a way to do it, first with the Lend-Lease program and then with a full conversion of America's manufacturing might to the production of weapons of war. Together, Churchill and Roosevelt prevailed.
            Today, Israel is surrounded by Islamists who seek its annihilation. It desperately needs the backing of the United States to fend off Iran and the fanatic Islamists rising to power on all sides. But can Israel count on us?  
            It is clear to me that President Obama, unlike Roosevelt, is not willing to give Israel America's full support. Should regional conflicts erupt into all-out war, I doubt that Obama will deploy America's arsenal in defense of Israel. The signs are all there.
            In the four years of his presidency, Obama has cultivated a friendship with Islam, but not with Israel. He traveled extensively throughout the Middle East on his apology tour during which he praised Islam, signaled his support for Muslim causes, and bowed to the Saudi king. But, during his entire presidency he has not visited Israel,  his number one ally. Not even once. Further, every meeting with Premier Netanyahu had been contentious and frosty, to say the least. When Netanyahu requested a face to face meeting with Obama when he came to the United Nations in late September, Obama told him he was too busy. Not too busy, of course, for fundraisers and for appearances on David Letterman and The View. This has not escaped the notice of Islamists.           
            If anything, Obama's policies of leading from behind in Libya and non-intervention in Syria have emboldened jihadists and America haters everywhere, as we have seen on the anniversary of 9/11. Our enemies know they have nothing to fear from a weak America. Meanwhile, this administration if falling all over itself to apologize for hurting Islam's feelings. As the caskets of four dead Americans slain in Benghazi are laid to rest, and American flags are being burned across the Muslim world, Obama minimizes these events as "bumps in the road."
            How will our Islam-loving president characterize Iranian missiles raining down on Tel Aviv? More "bumps in the road"?
            A beleaguered Netanyahu may remind us of Churchill. But as Muslims around the world desecrate our flag, stone our embassies, and kill our representatives,  President Obama's weakness and lack of resolve tell us that he most certainly is no Roosevelt.          

Platform Follies

            Former President Bill Clinton gave a masterful speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on September 5th. Once again he showed that he has no equal in political oratory, although I couldn't help recalling that the finger he wagged at us throughout the speech was the same finger he wagged when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Be that as it may, his persuasive arguments in favor of President Obama's reelection made us believe that the President's multiple failures were actually successes. There was no fault to be found in a dismal economic record, intractable unemployment, and a $16 trillion debt.

            Clinton needed to revive the fractious atmosphere on the convention floor after the embarrassing vote on the Democratic platform. First, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa failed after three tries to secure a two-thirds voice vote to approve the platform. Then he brazenly lied and declared the vote passed, producing a chorus of boos from the delegates. That's when President Obama stepped in.
            The issues in contention were dual exclusions from the platform. The first was the absence of any mention of God, which was an affront to people of faith, especially black Baptist ministers. The second was failing to affirm Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which angered Jewish voters and other firm supporters of Israel.
            So what did Obama do? He forced the platform committee to put God and Jerusalem back into the party platform. His aides scurried to explain that Obama had been unaware of the original platform omissions, that they did not reflect Obama's real positions, and that they were the result of some kind of technical glitch. All lies.
            We know that Obama is not a religious person in the traditional sense. Oh, he has strong beliefs. He believes that government is the only god, the source of all goodness, and he is its anointed Messiah. People no longer need the God of religion... except maybe Allah, of course..
            On that score, we know that Obama is a Muslim. In spite of all his efforts to prevent the TV replay of speeches in which he professes his Muslim faith, he cannot prevent the Internet from doing so. We know of his support for a Palestinian state, for his coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood, and his weakness in support of Israel. I could go on.
            The point here is that President Obama's positions do not mirror those of the American people. He has taken minority positions on abortion, on same sex marriage, on religious freedom, on energy, on health care, on small businesses, on taxes, on job-destroying regulations, on government spending, on the Middle East, and on and on.
            When the platform committee came back with a revised proposal to include God and Jerusalem, it was greeted with boos from the anti-Semites and the secular wing of the party, thus showing that the President's policy of divisiveness is dividing his own party. 
            What does all this prove? Obama cannot pander to all minorities and win.             

"You didn't build that."

            Vice-President Biden may hold the record for the most verbal gaffes uttered during this electioneering season, but President Obama may have given us the one that will last forever.

            "You didn't build that." This putdown of entrepreneurs is etched in stone. In a country whose fabulous success derives principally from individuals who built their own businesses with their ideas and their sweat, Obama's insult reveals not only his lack of understanding of the free enterprise system, but also his socialist belief in government as the solution to our problems.
            Americans think otherwise. As Ronald Reagan put it, "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."
            Obama's failure  to appreciate  American determination and ingenuity reminds me of  foolish statements by other people who lacked the vision to see beyond their noses. Here are some of my favorites:

            "Man will never reach the moon, regardless of all future scientific advances." __ Dr. Lee DeForest, radio pioneer.

            "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." __ Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923.

            "The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." __ Western Union memo, 1896

            "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." __ Lord Kelvin, 1895.

            "Everything that can be invented has been invented." __ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of Patents, 1899.

            "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, DEC Corp., 1977.

            "I don't know what use anyone could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself." __ the head of IBM, rejecting the idea put forth by the founder of Xerox.

            "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." __Yale University professor grading Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service (Smith went on to found Federal Express).

            "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." __ Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

            "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value." __ David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings to invest in the radio in the 1920s.

            "A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." Response to Mrs. Fields' idea.

            Cookies, anyone?