If Not ‘Apologizing,’ Mr. President, What Would You Call It?

OK, President Obama, if you and your defenders insist on denying that you’ve repeatedly apologized for America, then let’s quit mincing words and acknowledge you’ve done worse than apologize. That works for me. Maybe it is technically inaccurate to attribute the word apology to you, because you would have to identify with America more before you could apology on its behalf. Besides, I suppose we should not be surprised in this Clinton-inspired age of word meaninglessness — an age in which the simple word “is” no longer feels comfortable in its own skin — that you would deny you have apologized because you didn’t use the precise word “apology” in any of your shameful outings. You didn’t say you were sorry, either, come to think of it. But what you did do is harshly criticize America, not just to Americans on our soil but to other nations and their leaders on their soil. From the time you became a liberal activist, you’ve exhibited a grudge against America as originally founded, and since becoming president, you’ve made clear on numerous occasions that you still harbor that sentiment. Indeed, it seems rather obvious based on your statements and policies that your principal motivation for running for president was to “fundamentally transform America” — your words. Perhaps you could remake it into something you could be proud of and truly love. You showed genuine contempt for America’s conduct before you ascended to the presidency and hastened to add that you had nothing to do with it and would change it. In other words, on our behalf — your fellow Americans — you’ve presumptuously expressed contrition and promised repentance under any reasonable construction of language. From your condemnation of our enhanced interrogation techniques, which you scornfully call “torture” and which gave us the essential intelligence that led to our elimination of Osama bin Laden, to your denunciation of America’s attack on Iraq to your promise to close Gitmo, you have done more than distance yourself from your predecessors on policy. You’ve rendered a guilty verdict against America and painted it as the international outlaw and bully and vowed to turn things around by adopting an entirely new approach to the war on terror. And you’ve fulfilled that promise, which goes a long way toward explaining how the Fort Hood shooter was able to succeed in his mass murder and we lost four American lives in Benghazi, Libya. Seeing as you reject the term “apology” to describe your overtures, perhaps you could help us better characterize them. May I suggest “slam, dis, knock, reproach, blame, criticize, condemn, ridicule or denounce”? Let’s review: You scoffed at the idea of American exceptionalism. You want to increase our deference to international bodies that obviously don’t have our best interests at heart, and many of whose members reject our values. You have strongly criticized America’s record on civil and human rights to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. You said at the G-20 meeting in London that you believed your election would lead to a restoration of America’s positive image in the world, thereby implying it had a richly deserved negative image. You said America needs to account for “inadequacies” in its “regulatory system,” and you accepted blame and responsibility for the economic crisis having begun in the United States — “even if” you weren’t “president at the time.” You told the Al-Arabiya television network that America “dictates” without knowing “all the factors involved.” At the Summit of the Americas, you sat through Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s 50-minute harangue against the United States without registering a word of protest and then thanked him for not blaming you “for things that happened when” you were “3 months old.” You told the French that America failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world and that we’ve been “arrogant,” “dismissive” and “derisive.” In Trinidad, you said we’d been “disengaged” and “dictatorial.” In Prague, you said America has a moral responsibility to act on arms control because we are the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon. You tried to visit Japan to personally apologize for our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and when the Japanese rejected your offer as “a non-starter,” you sent Ambassador John Roos to do the job the following year. You apologized to the Communist Chinese for Arizona’s immigration law, a law that Mexican President Felipe Calderon condemned in the Rose Garden while you remained silent. In Mumbai, you told Indians that Americans think of India as but a land of call centers that cost Americans jobs. You told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that Mexicans were here “long before America was even an idea,” apparently unaware that Mexico declared its independence in 1810. But do you ever talk about America’s benevolence and philanthropy in the world? Do you ever praise America for liberating other nations and preventing the enslavement of the Western world by communism? Love and praise for America don’t roll off your lips. Censure and disparagement do. If “apology” doesn’t fit, please tell us what does. David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “The Great Destroyer,” reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

The ‘New Normal’ Christianity?

NBC’s sitcom “The New Normal” isn’t just trying to remake society for the Gay Left. It’s trying to remake Christianity, which is to say, destroy it. For its October 22 episode, “The Godparent Trap,” NBC ran promos with the gay character Brian in the confessional, and the priest sneering, “If you’re not going to take this seriously, I’m going to go back to playing Angry Birds.” As the plot unfolds, we’re told Brian was raised Catholic, and as he sits in a pew and looks around at religious pictures, he cracks gay jokes in his mind. He sees the Apostles: “Twelve dudes sitting around gossiping and drinking wine. You call that the Last Supper? I call that a Tuesday night.” He sees a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary: “Hey, Mary — I’m a virgin, too. I’ve also slept in a barn with three wise men.” Then he turns to an image of Jesus on the cross, and says, “I’m sorry. I shouldn’t be talking trash about your mother. But you know who judges me? Your father.” The priest asks Brian if he came for confession, so he enters the confessional. But he’s really not there to confess, but to continue the wisecracks. “Commandment-wise, I’ve pretty much done them all, except kill someone and covet my neighbor’s wife.” That earns the Angry Birds line NBC liked so much. Brian then says he wants to find godparents for his forthcoming baby from a surrogate mother, but he feels he doesn’t have a religious foundation. (Ya think?) The priest insists “the church is not anti-gay,” and to which predictably, Brian retorts, “Yet any chance he gets, the Pope treats gay marriage like (actress/reckless driver) Amanda Bynes treats pedestrians.” Then the priest himself turns on the Vicar of Christ as a crazy old loon: “Come on, haven’t you ever had a lovable old uncle who popped off intolerant comments at a family barbecue?” Brian asks, “Can’t you get fired for saying stuff like that?” The priest wisecracks, “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s pretty hard to get fired around here.” When the priest suggests there are churches “geared to your community,” Brian shoots back “I don’t want to be forced to use a separate water fountain. Why can’t the church just accept all people? … You toss Jesus’ name around. You don’t exactly practice what you preach. Jesus wouldn’t judge people on their sexuality because Jesus loved everyone.” In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, “New Normal” creator Ryan Murphy admitted the show is based on his life. Surprise, surprise. He was raised Catholic, and Brian, the bitter, wise-cracking gay man, “is clearly me.” This priest not only bashes the Pope as an intolerant old fool, he’s recruiting Brian to Fight the Power in earthy language. He says, “I never bought that Jesus-is-a-blissed-out-hippie crap. The man was pissed off.” He was “the Chuck Norris of his day,” and to turn the other cheek was “an act of defiance. It meant: I will see your insult and raise you a ‘suck it!'” Jesus “saw hypocrisy and injustice and said ‘Seriously? You guys are idiots. This has got to change!'” Yup, that’s what Jesus said in the Book of Tinseltown, Chapter 90210. Brian replies, “So you’re saying the church can change?” The priest then unspools a gay rights lecture, complete with soothing musical accompaniment: “Well it would. I’ve seen gay people battle discrimination and march for marriage equality. They demanded the right to fight for their country, but for their souls? Nope. They just give up and walk away. Jesus was a fighter, son. How about you?” No one on this show expressed an authentically Christian opinion. There are only leftist lectures — predictable, boorish, amateurish. (Unsurprisingly, Murphy is a huge Obama backer who held a fundraiser at his house with the president because “I just can’t imagine a world in which he does not win.”) You can also find the “cool, rebellious priest” model at the movies. A new film called “The Sessions” takes on the story of a 40-something disabled man who weighs about 70 pounds employing a “sexual surrogate” (a sort of therapeutic prostitute) so he can lose his virginity. People magazine reports he’s supported in this quest by a priest, “who in hilarious chats about just how sinful this particular sin would be, gives his blessing.” The movie is based on real life, where the disabled man consulted “Father Mike,” a young, bearded priest from the neighborhood church who “told me Jesus was never big on rules, that he often broke the rules out of compassion.” Hollywood wants to remake God in its own image, full of its version of “compassion” and shattering every traditional value. This mission is too important to weigh down with authentically Christian characters instead of wise-cracking and cartoonish propagandist puppets. L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

What About the Camp Bastion Attack?

Three days after the bloody 9/11 siege on our consulate in Benghazi, the Taliban waged an intricately coordinated, brutal attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. The murderous jihadists released video exactly one month ago this week showing off their training exercises in preparation for the assault. Where are the questions? Where’s the accountability? Where’s the Obama administration? Where’s the press? Where’s the outrage? Two heroic U.S. Marines were killed in the battle. Their names — Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt. Bradley Atwell — have not been uttered publicly by the commander in chief. Their arrival back in the U.S., in flag-draped coffins, was not broadcast on network TV. But their brothers-in-arms did not and will not forget. And neither must we. On September 20, John Gresham of the Defense Media Network wrote a scathing detailed breakdown of this little-noticed terrorist attack on our troops. He called it “arguably the worst day in USMC aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968.” Eight irreplaceable aircraft were destroyed or put out of action by Taliban warriors dressed in U.S. combat fatigues — amounting to “approximately 7 percent of the total flying USMC Harrier fleet,” Gresham reported. His summary is bone chilling: “A Harrier squadron commander is dead, along with another Marine. Another nine personnel have been wounded, and the nearby Marines at Camp Freedom are now without effective fixed-wing air support. The USMC’s response to this disaster will be a telling report card on its leadership and organizational agility.” On September 21, the left-leaning magazine The Atlantic published an article on the Camp Bastion attack titled “The U.S. Suffered Its Worst Airpower Loss Since Vietnam Last Week and No One Really Noticed.” A few right-leaning blogs raised troubling questions about preparedness and security. “How did this band of radicals even manage to approach a highly advanced multi-national military base without being detected, much less force their way inside en masse?” asked Kim Zigfeld of the American Thinker. “How were they able to attack so quickly and efficiently that, even though nearly every one of them was killed in the effort, they were able to harm the mighty leathernecks more than they had been in half a century?” National Review’s Jonathan Foreman wondered whether Pakistan was behind the attack. “It seems likely that the special forces of a professional army planned the raid, and trained, advised and led the raiders — that is if they did not actually take part in it. Those special forces would, of course, be those of Pakistan,” Foreman posited. “This may sound shocking, but it would hardly be the first time that Pakistani special forces have operated in Afghanistan on behalf of Islamabad’s allies and proxies.” President Obama has referred callously to the murders of our civilian diplomatic staff in Benghazi as “bumps in the road.” Even more maddening, though, is the radio silence from the White House about what happened that day at Camp Bastion — and what, if anything, Obama’s Pentagon did between the last major attack on Bastion in March and the bloody siege in September. Somehow, a band of 15 insurgents managed to penetrate the wire with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons on 9/14. Their destruction was of historic proportions. The attack came six months after U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was the target of a failed suicide attack attempt at Bastion. The (UK) Sun reported at the time that an Afghani was believed to have made the deliberate attempt on Panetta after “he broke through defenses and drove a vehicle towards his aircraft. He then went past the perimeter surrounded by armed security and large concrete block guards. Disaster was only averted when the truck caught fire and crashed into a ditch on the runway close to where Mr. Panetta’s jet had landed or was set to land.” Team Obama mocks GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney with snarky lines about bayonets and binders. The thin-skinned commander in chief exploits Seal Team Six to burnish his “leadership” cred. And the president’s campaign surrogates have ceaselessly attacked their critics as “unpatriotic” for questioning this administration’s commitment to national security. But silence is complicity. The questions must be asked: Did politically correct rules of engagement hamper our troops’ defenses? Who knew what and when? Who was behind the attackers? And what is being done to ensure our front-line defenders of freedom are able to defend themselves? Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

If Obama Wins, Will He Be Another Woodrow Wilson?

How will this election be seen in history? Obviously, it depends on who wins. If Barack Obama is defeated, the irresistible comparison will be with Jimmy Carter. A one-term president was rejected after pursuing big government programs amid high energy prices and attacks on America in the Middle East. Actually, that’s not entirely fair to Carter. His budget deficits were minuscule next to Obama’s, and in response to the Soviet attack on Afghanistan he began the defense buildup that Ronald Reagan accelerated. Carter supported airline deregulation, which made air travel widely accessible, as well as rail and trucking deregulation, which squeezed billions from the cost of goods and services. He signed a tax bill cutting capital gains rates and establishing 401(k) deferred-tax retirement accounts. Obama, in contrast, has made big defense cuts and suggested the sequestration process that threatens cuts his defense secretary calls catastrophic. And in the face of voter disapproval, he pushed through Obamacare and has moved toward more regulation on almost all fronts. In any case, a Romney victory would look like a refutation of the New Deal historians’ narrative — the idea that Democratic presidents increase the size and scope of government, voters ratify that and Republican successors leave it alone till the next Democrat gets in. If Obama loses, two of the last three Democratic presidents will have been defeated for re-election. The one who won a second term, Bill Clinton, did so only after he declared, after a Republican off-year victory, that the era of big government was over. What if Obama wins? Political analysts almost universally agree that any Obama victory will be by a smaller margin in both popular and electoral votes than his 53 to 46 percent win in 2008. He got a higher share of the popular vote than any other Democratic nominee history except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He’s pretty much abandoned two states he won last time, Indiana and North Carolina. In polls after the Oct. 3 debate, he has trailed in Florida. There has only been one president in American history who won a second term by a smaller popular vote percentage and electoral vote margin than four years before. That was Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat elected in a three-way contest against his two predecessors in 1912 and re-elected in 1916 by 49 to 46 percent in popular votes and 277 to 254 in the Electoral College. If California, which then had only 13 electoral votes, had not gone for Wilson by 3,773 votes, the incumbent would have lost. In his first term, Wilson had legislative accomplishments more popular than Obama’s. A partisan Democratic Congress passed a new antitrust act, created the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, lowered trade barriers and imposed an income tax on high earners. When Americans voted in November 1916, World War I had been raging in Europe for more than two years. Hundreds of thousands were dying in trench warfare, and Wilson ran on the slogan of, “He kept us out of war.” Wilson’s second term was wholly unlike his first. In April 1917, he went before Congress and got approval for a declaration of war against Germany. A military draft was instituted, a law passed criminalizing antiwar protests, the railroads were nationalized, and the top income tax rate was raised to 77 percent. Wilson’s idealistic postwar plans were frustrated in the Treaty of Versailles, which was rejected by the Senate. Revolutionaries set off bombs on Wall Street and outside the attorney general’s house. Wilson’s party lost the 1920 election by a 60 to 34 percent margin. This history is unlikely to be repeated if Obama is re-elected. But Obama’s problem, apparent in the feisty second presidential debate as well as the first, is that voters don’t know what he will do — beyond what he has done so far — in a second term. His specific proposals — 100,000 teachers, infrastructure “investment” — are retreads. He is less specific on tax policy and budget deficits than Romney. Presidents who get re-elected usually offer second term agendas. Obama hasn’t, especially on the economy. As a re-elected president, he will be as free of constraints, as Wilson was. Voters must hope that a second Obama term won’t be as disastrous as the second Wilson term. Democrats must hope it’s not as disastrous for their party. Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Duane Miller’s Resignation

Effective immediately, Duane Miller has resigned from The Proud Americans. He has decided to pursue God’s calling him back into full-time ministry. We wish him all the best and we look forward to seeing what great things God will continue to work through him and his ministry! You can check out his ministry at www.nuvoice.org. A message from Duane… “I have resigned from The Proud Americans because I want to spend more time in ministry (www.nuvoice.org) and with my family. God first, family second, and then The Proud Americans. The Proud Americans remains the greatest organization of its kind on the planet and I am proud to have served these past years as we began. I encourage you to stand with them as they move forward into the next phase of growth.” Inquiries can continue to be directed to our Member Support Center at 1-855-60-PROUD (77683) or to our Customer Support Director, Samantha Clay at samantha.clay@theproudamericans.org. Thank you for your support and for being one of The Proud Americans! Jerrell G. Clay CEO The Proud Americans

TPA News – Helping you stay informed

Women Decide for Whom the Buck Stops

Suzanne Fields

12-10-19 There’s a new woman voter out there. Empowered women are holding themselves to the same standard they hold men to, and it’s showing up in the public opinion polls. Female concerns over the debt and the deficit, not the usual gender issues, have dramatically increased as the Nov. 6 election bears down upon us. The Gallup Poll now shows Mitt Romney trailing the president by only a point among women who are likely to vote in 12 swing states. This follows a Pew Research Center poll taken after the first presidential debate showing that President Obama’s 18-point lead among women had shrunk to a tie, 47 percent to 47 percent. “In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today after the first debate. These polls find women increasingly concerned with the deficit and debt, just like men. The social issues continue to be more important to women than to men, but these issues no longer dominate the discussion. Hillary Clinton’s famous needling of Barack Obama four years ago — “the buck stops in the Oval Office” — suggested that he didn’t have the leadership qualities required in a president. She reprised the theme this week, inadvertently or not, when she fell on the president’s sword to take the blame for the national-security fiasco in Libya. Her attempt to rescue the president with her declaration that “the buck stops with me” follows the litany of mixed metaphors in search of someone to blame for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The president stands accused of “throwing Hillary under the bus,” she’s accused of “getting Obama off the hook,” and the State Department has become the “broken link” in “the chain of events” of a major security failure. The “failure of intelligence” contributes a new definition of incompetence at the highest levels of government. When a president hides behind the skirt, or actually the pantsuit, of his secretary of state, it’s enough to tempt even a feminist to put national security above the social issues. Mrs. Clinton can’t like the position she has been relegated to, taking responsibility for the president’s own debacle after weeks of White House misinformation. Her lame lamentation that she wanted to avoid “some kind of political gotcha” so close to the election makes her look less than authoritative even as it renders the president as weak and confused. She was busy enough trying to defend the robotic Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for her repeated description of the Benghazi terrorism as “spontaneous” protest of an obscure anti-Islam Internet video that almost nobody, in the Middle East or elsewhere, has seen. Ironically, Hillary fell on the president’s sword from a perch in Peru, where she is attending a conference devoted to, of all things, “women’s empowerment.” It hasn’t been a good fortnight for the ladies in leadership positions. Candy Crowley, the moderator of the second debate, got it wrong when she misconstrued Obama’s use of the word “terror” in his Rose Garden remarks speech the day after the Benghazi tragedy, and had to concede that Romney was correct that the president refused for two weeks to say that the death of his ambassador in Libya was an act of “terrorism” and not a violent movie review. Many women are exacting a heavy price for the president’s alienation of affection. Susan Crown, a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage Chicago businesswoman, is one prominent example. She is a fallen-away Obama fan who campaigns this year for Romney. She argues that the so-called war on women is actually an economic war on everybody. She observes that the annual household income has dropped by an average of $4,000 since the president took office, a fact emphasized by Mitt Romney in the second debate, with the acid observation that, “I do not think Barack Obama has ever taken an accounting class.” In the second debate, Romney looked deeper into the dark side of Obama accounting, finding that 3.5 million more women are living in poverty than before he took charge of the economy. Women understand that an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment, when half of college graduates can’t find good jobs, is not good for anyone. In the first presidential debate Romney destroyed the straw man that the president constructed to represent the challenger. In the second debate, he destroyed the prospect that the straw man could be resurrected. Three weeks on, women and men will finally decide for whom the buck stops. Write to Suzanne Fields at: suzannefields2000@gmail.com. To find out more about Suzanne Fields and read her past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Obama and Romney

Obama v Romney Round 2

Obama and Romney looked like a Frazier and Ali heavyweight boxing match. Give and take was from both candidates was front and center in their second debate. Each candidate was given the opportunity to answer prepared questions from the audience in a town-hall setting. Well, almost. Candy Crowley, CNN reporter and debate moderator, interrupted the governor multiple times, provided “cover” for the President when he was caught in a flat lie about Benghazi, and allowed Obama the last word in nearly every exchange. Mr. Romney talked about his ideas and his plans for the future. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, seemed more focused on attacking the Governor than defending his record and discussing his plan for the next four years. Obama’s performance had the same tone as his campaign. Attack the individual, don’t engage on ideas. Mr. Obama blatantly lied (yeah, I know, that isn’t politically correct, but it is true) when he said that oil production from public lands and waters is up. He knows better. Obama knows that his administration has been the biggest roadblock to oil production in history. He lied (I know, that’s two) about increasing employment in the coal industry. He got caught lying (3 and out) about calling the Benghazi attack a “terrorist attack” until days after the event, and Crowley bailed him out by stating that he did call it a terrorist attack on the day after its occurrence, she was wrong too.

Character Assassination vs. Policy Debate

Obama gets points for being aggressive, but his aggressiveness was hollow. Obama tended toward character assassination, not genuine policy debate. He seemed more interested in making Romney look bad than in advancing his own ideas. Someone tell me what, exactly, President Obama said that had substance. He didn’t talk about foreign policy which was probably wise given Benghazi-gate. Crowley quickly interrupted and changed the subject when Romney broached the subject of Fast and Furious. There was nothing neutral about the moderator’s performance here and nothing of substance from the President. Obama told us that “some jobs will never return” and that he was interested in Americans having high paying jobs, but he didn’t suggest how he would accomplish that task. Instead, Obama attacked Romney about his overseas investments. Obama blamed Bush for the economy (again) and actually had the audacity to intimate that current gas prices are his fault. He attacked Romney for closing “a” coal-fired energy plant in Massachusetts instead of talking about how his green-energy policies will put Americans back to work any time soon. Obama admitted that his State Department fumbled Benghazi, but we know that his Secretary of State took the political fall for him yesterday in an attempt to defuse the situation. Obama’s comment about when he called the attack a “terrorist attack” will likely haunt him. Maybe, like Andy Petite, he “misremembered.” Bottom line? If it was Clinton’s fault, then she should be fired. If it wasn’t, then Obama is even more culpable. Obama regurgitated his fix for the economy. His 1-point plan (something he accused Romney of having) is to make sure that “the rich” and corporations pay their “fair share.” What Mr. Obama won’t say in plain language that anyone can understand is that he is going to raise taxes on those that pay taxes. The plan is presented as the “fair” option. People who don’t pay taxes are all for having taxes raised on everybody else. Mr. Romney is attacked as a “rich” guy and his plan to reduce governmental interference in business is framed in terms of class warfare.

Obama Was Kidding, Right?

The high-humor of the evening came near the end of the debate. In answer to the final question, Mr. Obama said, “I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that’s somehow is the answer. That’s not what I believe. I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative, and risk-takers be rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot, and everybody should do their fair share, and everybody should play by the same rules, because that’s how our economy is grown.” To quote, Larry The Cable Guy, “Now that there’s funny, I don’t care who ya are.” But Mr. Obama couldn’t leave it there. He had to finish the evening with another attack on Romney, “I believe Gov. Romney is a good man — loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors, that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims, who refuse personal responsibility — think about who he was talking about. Folks on Social Security who have worked all their lives; veterans who sacrifice for this country; students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams; Soldiers who are overseas, fighting for us right now; people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.” Obama knows that Romney was NOT talking about folks on Social Security, veterans, soldiers, students, and people who work every day. Every one of those folks is a contributor. Romney was talking about the free-loaders that don’t pay their “fair share.” The politics of character-assassination is the politics of a candidate that is bereft of ideas. Although the media will claim victory for Obama, Romney won the debate on substance.

Malala Matters

Malala Yousafzai

Malala Yousafzai never thought you would know her name. She is 14 years old and being raised in Pakistan, ally of the United States and recipient of billions of taxpayer dollars in aid. In 2009, Malala wrote (under a pen name) of her experience as a schoolgirl in a Muslim extremist area. Malala was being excluded from education because Sharia law implemented by the Taliban closed the private schools admitting women. Malala’s identity was revealed later, and she was nominated for an International Children’s Peace Prize. She also won the National Peace Prize in Pakistan. Today, Malala is recovering from an attack in which she was shot by Taliban members or sympathizers. Malala matters because her experience is exemplary of what happens to those who dare to think and challenge the stone-age thinking of muslim extremists. According to Taliban spokesmen, Malala’s crime was “promoting Western thinking.” The spokesmen have also vowed that if Malala survives her current condition, her life is still in jeopardy and will not be spared. So, the Taliban has declared war on Malala because she wants to be educated and move her culture forward. This is what a true “war on women” looks like. It is for young women like Malala that the war against the Taliban and their ilk was initiated.

Malala Suffered A Terrorist Attack

The same extremists who shot Malala instigated the attack on the World Trade Center and the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The groups may have different names, but they have a common commitment to violence and to ending “western thought.” The Vice-President, Joe Biden, embarrassed himself and the administration with his condescending and arrogant snickering during the debate with Congressman Paul Ryan. He made the issues and sacrifices of our military and people like Malala seem insignificant and he apparently thinks them humorous. According to the Vice-President, neither he nor the President knew about the denial of sufficient security forces in Benghazi. Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus during the debate, now it seems the administration is blaming the State Department for the debacle. Either way, the buck stops with the President (according to another Democrat, Harry S. Truman), and, of course, he is ducking. Malala is proof-positive that the administration policy of appease and apologize puts innocents in jeopardy. Benghazi is proof-positive that this administration has little to no regard for the safety of Americans, even diplomats, against islam-extremists. For this administration, the attempted assassination of a fourteen-year-old girl and the killing of four Americans is nothing more than a “bump in the road.”

Withdrawing Troops is Different From Ending A War

We need an administration that is not averse to using the word “terrorist” when describing the attackers of Malala. We need an administration that is not afraid or unwilling to describe the attack on the consulate in Benghazi as “terrorist” immediately. We need an administration that understands that the war in which we are engaged was not waged by one man nor ended with his death. Malala never knew Bin Laden or wrote about him, personally. The President has done much chest-thumping about killing Bin Laden. He wants full credit for the operation that took his life. The President makes loud and long statements about “ending” the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, the President was also raising re-election funds in Las Vegas while our consulate was burning. When objectively observing the world-situation, the question must be asked whether the war was “ended” or whether the United States simply withdrew. To Malala, there is a big difference. “Ended” indicates prevailing in the conflict, but Malala would question whether we prevailed. There is a new government in Libya, but events in Benghazi would indicate that our values have not prevailed. Any firefighter knows that “hotspots” have to be controlled for a good while after a major blaze has been extinguished. Leaving too soon allows the fire to rekindle and become a new threat. When we “withdraw” our forces in islamist-extremist countries, the enemy we were controlling and vanquishing regains its strength and positions and will continue to threaten its own citizens and us. To believe that “ending” a war by just withdrawing from a given theater is naïve, at best. To believe that the United States will somehow be immune to islamist-extremist attacks like the one on Malala borders on madness. 9/11 has become a “sacred” date for terrorists. Blaming a video and not knowing or admitting the truth is reprehensible. Please, Mr. President, acknowledge the enemy we face. Please, Mr. President, quit lying to the American people about “ending” the wars. Please, Mr. President, take your responsibilities seriously and quit blaming everyone else for your incompetence or your indifference. Please, Mr. President, protect us from those who wage a real war on women. Malala matters.

“Death Panels” Are Good Things?

Obamacare Mandates “Death Panels”

“Death Panels” as they have come to be known over the past 3 years, are mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known as “Obamacare.” Although at one point, the administration denied the existence of such death panels in the legislation, we now know that, indeed, Independent Payment Advisory Boards (death panels) are a significant inclusion in the Act. It is ironic that “Protection” is used in the title of the Act, since the most vulnerable among us, the unborn and the elderly are targeted, not for protection, but for death. The death panels are instituted to dispose of them as groups so that we don’t have to think about them as individuals.

The Democrats Lied

Though Democrat legislators promised that in passing the Act, “Individual health care providers and health care facilities may not be discriminated against because of a willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” Democrat legislators also promised that “Health plans cannot be required to cover abortions as part of its essential health benefits package. Health plans can choose to cover: no abortions, only those abortions allowed by the Hyde amendment (rape, incest and life endangerment), or abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde. Planned Parenthood and its ilk are the death panels instituted and supported by this administration. Having seen the mandate issued in the regulations promulgated by HHS Secretary Sibelius, we can unequivocally charge that the legislators, who passed this Act, lied to the American voters who put them in office. Abortion coverage is being mandated no matter the conscience of the individual, the company, or the insurer. There are some 3 dozen lawsuits that have been filed challenging this point in the law. It is also true that the legislation contains death panel language no matter how loudly the Democrats protest.

Steven Rattner Wants Death Panels

Steven Rattner has now weighed in on healthcare and death panels. Rattner, you may remember, was the Car Czar that Obama put in place to reorganize General Motors and Chrysler. It was Rattner that devised the death-plan that closed dealerships all over the country and put 10s of thousands of workers out of their jobs. Rattner, like the other liberals who can’t, don’t, or won’t understand that the $82 Billion they “invested” in the sector, the “management” they brought in, and the restructured companies have yet to recover and are still very much at risk. The death panel that took over the auto industry (except Ford) has yet to replace the jobs it killed. Rattner believes that GM, particularly, and Chrysler, to a lesser degree, are overwhelming successes. We believe that government has no role in the death of private industry or the death of private citizens. Rattner, in an op-ed piece published in the New York Times, September 16, 2012, unleashes his “genius” on healthcare costs by stating, “The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.” That is Rattner-speak for, “we have to have death panels to make an economic decision to kill Grandma by withholding her care so that we can spend the money on what we deem to be more important.” He goes on, “Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.” What Mr. Rattner doesn’t disclose is that according to a BBC News report, 55% of Brits diagnosed with cancer never get to see a specialist and die. That may be good for economics but I certainly don’t want some death panel deciding that my parents or grandparents will be denied the opportunity to live to see their grandkids grow up. The 5 year survival rate for colon cancer patients in Britain is only 36%, while in the United States it is 60%. According to a report by the National Right to Life Committee, that statistic is a direct result of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in Great Britain (the GB version of the death panel) refusing to approve mainline drugs commonly used in the United States. There are lots of ways to control healthcare costs and the governmental debt. This administration and Mr. Rattner have proposed an unthinkable solution. Death panels must never be allowed to be put in place. In World War II, the German government had death panels that decided who should live and die. It has come to be known as the Holocaust.

Rights of Americans are being Trampled

Hobby Lobby Sues to Retain Its Rights

Rights of Americans are being trampled by the Health and Human Services contraception/abortion mandate. Last month, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit against the administration’s mandate in order to retain its religious rights. Hobby Lobby is the largest business, to date, to file suit, having 500 stores in 41 states. There are some 3 dozen lawsuits against the mandate that are pending. You might remember that Hercules Industries, a Colorado business owned by devout Roman Catholics, won a temporary injunction preventing implementation of the mandate by claiming their religious rights are being violated. Note, the ruling is being appealed by the Obama administration. However, a Federal court in Missouri threw out a similar lawsuit filed by O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC saying that the mandate to provide “indirect financial support of a practice” to which O’Brien had objected on the basis of the violation of his religious rights was not “a substantial burden” on him or his company. Hobby Lobby founder and CEO, David Green, says that Hobby Lobby’s insurance plans do cover contraception that is preventative in nature, but that the “abortion-causing drugs go against our faith, and our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful…We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate…our faith is being challenged by the federal government.” Green has decided to fight for his religious rights. To give some perspective on the massiveness of the issue, if Hobby Lobby dropped its insurance for employees, it would face fines of $26 million per year. If the company continued to offer insurance, but did not comply with the mandate, the fines could be as high as $400 million per year, according to their attorney, Kyle Duncan.

Legislating Morality

Liberals, the irreligious, and those who want nothing to do with God or anything absolute are quick to use the phrase, “you can’t legislate morality” when they feel their rights are being violated. We, who do believe, are told that we are not to “jam our belief system down their throats.” I have not heard one liberal, the ACLU, or any other leftist stand up and scream about the violation of the rights of millions of Americans who hold the traditional values that made this nation great. Social engineering (manipulating a population to accomplish cultural change) is the absolute goal of liberal politics. To illustrate, if a conservative doesn’t believe in owning a gun, he won’t buy one, but believes that everyone ought to have the right to make that choice. A liberal, on the other hand, needs to engineer society so that no one has the right to purchase or own guns in order to validate his own position. This administration is as intent on and engaged in social engineering as any in American history and it will violate our rights to accomplish its end. In order to manipulate a population, the “foreign” (that which is radically different) must be made to feel familiar. The cultural change being sought by the liberal left through Obamacare and its mandate, concerns the sanctity of life. American society had been assumed, until the past 60 years in American life, that life was sacred and that it began at conception. The baby (not the “blob of cells” had a right to life). The population had to be manipulated to make holding that position become uncomfortable so that the “foreign” position could be made to feel familiar. In the 1950s, the absolutes of the Bible and public prayer were removed from public schools. One can assert that a slippery slope was created which led to changing abortion policies in the 1960s, which led to the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The women’s movement, women’s rights, civil rights, and environmental rights groups all formed during that era. Moral relativism became a mainstream teaching of philosophy rather that the radical fringe it had occupied previously. Accepting relativism as “normal” and “absolutism” as radical is a success of liberal social engineers. Making the “foreign” feel familiar was absolutely essential if the culture was to be changed and they have done it well. This President even had the courage to proclaim that we are now a “post-Christian” nation. One should not be surprised by the mandates and the legislation put forth by this administration. Their worldview does not include your individual rights. The only way for liberals to feel successful is to engineer the world to look the way they see it. Individual freedoms, or rights, are not a part of their paradigm, though they parrot the words when it seems appropriate. Hobby Lobby and the others who have sued are challenging the social engineering being promulgated by Obama and his administration. They are fighting for their rights and the rights of every American. Even though the Supreme Court upheld the healthcare law, the ruling did not deal with any of the religious liberty issues that are now being raised against the contraceptive/abortion mandate. There is no doubt in our mind that the Supreme Court will have another opportunity to strike down the most extreme social engineering project and the most egregious violation of First Amendment rights ever foisted upon the American public.