Undecideds, clueless, and malevolent…

Here are the human characteristics that kill a nation…

Ignorance, malevolent motives, and indifference.

Those who are undecided about who they want to vote for for president are a prime example.  What does it take to be undecided at this stage of the election process?  The combination of ignorance and indifference.  Such people would likely fail at deciding if they want to take a dump or eat marshmallows.  Hopefully many of these people will be so conflicted they won’t decide whether or not to vote until after the election.

Cluelessness is the child of indifference.  Indifference comes from petty hedonism and self-absorption.  This nation is filled with these – mostly democrats, and mostly those younger than 30, although I know a few who are somewhat older.  TV for the poor and middle class, cruises and golf for those more well off, are their greatest source of self-fulfillment; garbage in – garbage out.  Bread and circuses.

Malevolent instigators and leaders are those whose motives are to change America into a socialist, communist, or Islamic state – a state that thrives on clueless and ignorant people.  These are the ones who promote cluelessness, ignorance, self-absorption, and dependency.  The helpless and hapless require a big government to play the “mommie” role and take care of them.  Bigger government and more power is what the malevolent want, and they will instigate the clueless, ignorant, and dependent to demand it.

Need I say it again:  The great majority of these are democrats.  Not the democrats of 50 years ago, but the new breed who came out of the druggies, radicals, protestors and leftist domestic terrorists of the ‘60’s.  Obama and his buddies bubbled up from this morass.

So, at this stage of the game, if you come across an “undecided”, pity them, and don’t bother with any conversion attempt because the level of ignorance and cluelessness of such individual is so all encompassing that any whisper or innuendo from any source will change or paralyze such person’s thinking process, if he ever had one.

“Forward…” into the abyss

The Obama campaign’s pet slogan is FORWARD!

Forward to what?  Forward to more government programs, influence, favoritism, taxes, government debt, control, and entitlement dependency?  Forward to less freedom, personal responsibility, initiative, and independence?  Forward toward a socialist state where the great majority depend on government and the productive minority support government?  Sure, that will work.  NOT!

No thanks.  The federal government has already proven its ineptness in providing services in a cost-effective manner.  Large bureaucracies, whether governmental or large corporate, suck at providing responsive, cost effective services.

My recent experiences in dealing with Home Depot or Lowes compared to dealing with small, independent contractors for home improvements have convinced me of the “smaller is better” conclusion.  The big bureaucracy maintains layers of scheduling, fees, and split responsibilities for whatever they provide.  The independent entrepreneur is committed to personal responsibility and simplicity for the customer in providing cost effective services.

Services provided by big government have the same defects as services provided by  big businesses:  Excessive layers of specialization and responsibility, lack of flexibility and responsiveness and excessive costs.

Obama and socialism represent the big government model.  No thanks!

The liberal’s favorite slander is to infer that Romney and conservatives would take our military and our government programs back to bayonets and shooting grandma.   Those are scare tactics and lies to promote big government and more government programs.

Too many lazy, dependent, self-absorbed, inert, tax-sucking Americans love the big government, squeeze-the-producers model that Obama and socialism promote.

If Obama wins the election, it will be all ahead full speed toward that socialist fiasco.

Dolan the dumbfounding…

Sorry, Catholic Cardinal Dolan fans, I cannot picture Jesus yucking it up in the close presence of politicians like Barack Obama who advocate baby killing.

I picture Jesus lecturing, then dusting off his sandals and leaving. 

This photo of Cardinal Dolan at the recent Al Smith Dinner with President (government sponsored abortion and birth control advocate Obama) is sickening.  This is the equivalent of Jesus yucking it up with Pontius Pilate.  Can you picture that?

On the one hand the church is supposedly infuriated that the Obama administration would mandate birth control measures that are an anathema to Church doctrine and religious liberty.  On the other hand a major church leader is engaged in a social event that is sure to garner votes for Obama from ignorant Catholics who only bother with the superficial actions they observe.

The substance of the following YouTube by Michael Voris makes a great deal of sense, but is too difficult for many to admit…

Obama campaign: Say it often enough…

“We gave you what we knew based on the intelligence we had.”

This is the Obama Administration line given dozens of times over the past few days to defend the wrong, misleading, and inflammatory info they gave us within the weeks following the Benghazi attack.

At the same time, they are still condemning Romney for stating the facts of what really happened based on the intelligence HE had:  It was a premeditated terrorist attack, not a reaction to a 14-minute video.

Now tell me truthfully:  Whose intelligence would you rather rely on?

How much audacity does it take to criticize someone for coming out early with accurate information while trying to defend your own coming out early with bad information?  A bit disingenuous, wouldn’t you say?

Why did this happen?  Because the Obama administration has an agenda, a script based on their belief that saying anything against Islam needs to be stifled and punished.  How long did it take the government to jail the guy who made the movie.  Three days?

On top of their anti-American agenda, this administration has been exceedingly sloppy with their botched cover-up, with the State Department and the White House and the Intelligence Community giving contradictory accounts for weeks after the initial event.

The wrong agenda coupled with audacity along with a large dose of incompetence is a really lousy combination – a situation that should have never been allowed to occur, and should never occur again. 

 

Biden-Ryan: The fool versus the wise

 

This is the real Joe Biden vs. the real Paul Ryan.  Smirky, smarmy, condescending, insulting, rude, disrespectful, dismissive, mocking.  And jocular Joe’s continual reference to Ryan as “my friend” in an unmistakably derisive tone.  With these behaviors on exhibition for the world to see, is there any question why Congress fails to “get it together?”

Proverbs 29:9 nails the contrast: 

“When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,
The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.”                New American Standard Version

The fool versus the wise.

Among the many instances where this distinction was made apparent were the responses made by each concerning the question on abortion.  Martha Raddatz asked this:

We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this,” Raddatz said. ”And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please — this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country — please talk personally about this, if you could.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/12/did-raddatz-tee-up-abortion-question-to-force-focus-back-on-obamas-war-on-women-playbook/#ixzz296fM7mJ0

And yes, liberal moral relativists loved this question.

But before focusing on the responses of the candidates, consider what idiot might make this ludicrous declaration:

"While I am personally against murder, I have no intention of forcing my opinion on others or through government laws or policies to prohibit the freedom to murder.”

Ryan’s response was basically this:

“I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.”

Biden’s response was basically this:

“With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

“But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.”

Just like a decision to murder might be between a couple of street thugs – murder of convenience.

So, while Biden accepts his Catholic church’s doctrine that “life begins at conception in the church’s judgment” he does not equate abortion as murder.  He reduces “the churches judgment” on when life begins to something that is only valid for personal faith but not civic practice.  Now that is creative morality, Joe.  Joe, my friend, would you apply the same “logic” to your church’s doctrine that “murder” is wrong, but refuse to impose that “personal opinion” on others?

Ryan took a logically consistent high moral road with his response.  Joe, the consummate uses car salesman, used twisted logic and moral relativism to form his reply.

Go laugh it off Joe.  You are indeed the proverbial “good ol’ boy”, the smiling back slapper who would likely trade his mother for a vote.

So, voters, who would you rather have leading you?  One who belittles, derides, and smirks when discussing serious life and death issues, or one who has the character and courage to stand up for what he believes?

 

Romney’s Middle East Policy Like Obama’s on Steroids…

…ignoring the cultural chasm of the Islamic ideology and morality.

Unfortunately, Romney's Middle East policy is Obama's on steroids. He is deluded by his advisors into thinking we have democracy-loving allies over there (besides Israel) that yearn to be our friends. He does not understand that their Islamic culture would need trillions of dollars and centuries of "nation building" effort to make a dent. We can't afford another year of this nonsense. Defend our own border and draw clear lines in the sand that will trigger 1,000 times the terror committed against us or our allies if crossed by sponsoring nations. And yes, Mr. Romney, jihad is CENTRAL to Islam.

Read Diana West's excellent commentary on this topic, below.

Dear Mitt, Imagine Uncle Sam Were a Bain Client

Written by: Diana West Monday, October 08, 2012 6:19 AM

Dear Mitt,

I know you're a busy man. But this foreign policy needs some more time and thought on your part, and before your next debate with Obama.

It's not that O's a foreign policy genius; he's not. It's not that his foreign policy is good; it stinks. But what you have crafted (excerpted below) is more of the same. Just as you want to remap the economic course of the nation, you should also want to remap the foreign policy course of the nation. Why? The fact is -- the fact your experts won't tell you -- through the Bush-Obama years our foreign policy course has been hijacked by a tiny band of extremists: Leftists, dupes and Islamic agents. Or, as we call them today, COINdinistas, neocons/McCainiacs and the Muslim Outreached.

I've read excerpts of your Monday speech at VMI at NRO. I'm going to skip your paeon to George Marshall, about whom the nicest thing I can say is that he is the most overrated of American statesmen (but if you win the election, the subject should be revisited). For now, I want you to imagine Uncle Sam were a Bain client with a big problem: his foreign policy isn't working and the cost in blood and treasure is taking him down.

With that in mind, let's take another look at your VMI excerpts.

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts.

OK.

They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

Uh-oh. I sense a McCain-like framework of "friends" vs. "extremists" fighting for the outcome of "Arab Spring."

Note to Mitt: ASAP, please have an aide read and report to you on Andrew C. McCarthy's Spring Fever.

The attack on our consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, was likely the work of the same forces that attacked our homeland on September 11, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.

Note to Mitt: Please don't "submit" to Islamic characterizations of the video -- or the cartoon, or the pope's speech, or the whatever the next object of Islamic rage will be.

I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope.

That's too bad, Mitt. This is where your coterie's ignorance of Islam gets dangerous. While there may be co-existence based on separation between the West and Islam -- your energy-independence goal is a great start -- there is no "alliance" possible between cultures so diametrically opposed at their philosophical and moral centers. The Islamic Middle East is a set of collectivist cultures rooted in Islam, where the individual, the woman, the non-Muslim are, at best, endowed with the paltriest of unequal rights by the state; nothing from their Creator. These are societies where freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech do not and cannot exist. There is no reason to hope for the common cause that underlies "alliance." Indeed, such hope is wishful thinking at best and, for a commander-in-chief, an irrational basis of policy. Would you, as Bain CEO, tell a client to commit vast expenditures of resources without reason?

But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity. . . .

First, what "friends" besides Israel? Meanwhile, we have backed up words with deeds in Iraq, for example, for eight long, blood-and-treasure-costly years and don't have a single friend in Mesopotamia to show for it. (Iran, however, does.)

It is time to change course in the Middle East. . . .

Agreed, but ...

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear-weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft-carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated. . . .

I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free-trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships, and establishing new ones.

I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.

Again, who, where, what are you talking about? What you lay out here is not so much a US foreign policy vision as a paranormal vision of the Islamic world as a hotbed of small-d democrats with whom the United States can make common cause -- if only we can find "friends" to support there. This is the same failed premise of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, if Uncle Sam were a customer at Bain, would you advise the old guy to repeat the same business plan that has been bankrupting the company?

In Libya, I will support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.

In Egypt, I will use our influence—including clear conditions on our aid—to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.

In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.

Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines.

It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

Note to Mitt: Think Bain. Our strategy has failed at great cost in four major markets (Baghdad, Kabul, Benghazi and Cairo). Why tell shareolders you're repeating the same failed strategy in a fifth?

And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.

Note to Mitt: This is not the way to address the spectacular losses of US and other Western troops to those same Afghan security forces, let alone everything else. (Maybe we can talk more off-line.) Meanwhile, as you seem to have understood at the beginning of your presidential run, the Bush-Obama nation-building policy is a failure. US Out of Afghanistan ASAP, not the end of 2014.

President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war—and to potential attacks here at home—is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11.

I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders.

General Allen? Gen. Dempsey?

And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

Secure the nation's borders, pursue energy independence, and, at least for the duration, shut down or sharply curtail travel to and from Axis-of-jihad and satellite nations. Also restrict visas and end Islamic immigration in order prevent a sharia demographic from gaining critical mass here at home.

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.

That's your "finally" point -- a miasmic vision of peace-loving democrats in a Palestinian state and more "peace process" by which Israel is further stripped and weakened? Mitt, You're a numbers-guy. Try this number: In a recent poll in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip, 73 percent of Palestinians agreed with the canonical hadith (the words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad which have a weight often equal to the Koran), included in the Hamas Covenant, that quotes Mohammed on the necessity for "Muslims to fight the Jews and kill them."

In summation, you say: "America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years." I couldn't agree more. This president has been assaulting our economy and Constitution for almost four years. Four more more years of Obama's war on capitalism and liberty would be the end of both, so you have my vote. On foreign policy, however, you are, I sense, projecting the wishful thinking of your advisors, many of whom, shell-shocked and desperate after a decade of disasters, are unable to admit past mistakes and will doom you to repeat them.

Do take another look -- this time, as if the bottom line depended on it.