Throughout this nation, Illinois not excluded, concerned Americans who believe this nation is on a fast track to Socialism and with it a Godless society — notably among those who embrace the Christian faith — must do more than pray. It’s not enough to pray and then leave the rest to God to handle (to get things done) without doing our part.

Although prayer cannot be dismissed, it is important to realize how today’s concerns have resulted from the abuse of our Constitution over many years. Too many Americans have little or no understanding of this nation’s Constitution and what the amazing document stands for: It encompasses the building blocks which should serve as the foundation of our nation today, even as it did when ratified for a new and fledgling nation on September 17,1787.

Therefore, the dominant issue for consideration as voters go to the polls on November 7th must be, “Do you realize the dangerous consequences of unchecked power getting out of control?”, and not moral issues, as such, or party affiliation.

Our Constitution, as conceived by our Founding Fathers, was meant to 1) protect this nation and its people from our elected leaders and 2) limit the scope of government by defining what it can do.

This nation’s 2nd president, John Adams, understood the consequences of power unchecked when he is wrote:

“Power must never be trusted without a check.”

Adams’ prophetic warning to a young nation strikes a chord today as Americans go to the polls on November 6th:

“. . . A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

The fear of what might happen down the road by the signers of the Constitution has come to fruition, despite all their concerns and fierce debates which preceded its ratification.

An inherent part of human nature is for man to devise back door ways to avoid dealing with issues, as was done over the years to circumvent our Constitution. The results have ushered in the creation of bigger and bigger government by both Democrats and Republicans, which has now culminated with a present Chief Executive who regularly usurps the Constitution and the rule of law through an expanded scope of executive authority beyond measurable means.

Our Constitution has been abused more in the last four years than at any other time in this nation’s history.

Highlights from the following article point to how President Obama views the Constitution. With his views come insight:

1. In Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, then State Senator Obama asserted “the Constitution was not a static document, but rather a living one, that must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

2. Obama went on to say that “democracy was a conversation to be had and that the genius of the Constitution was not that it provided a blueprint for action, but rather that it forced us into a conversation.”

3. Obama called the Constitution an “imperfect document” during a radio interview in 2001 because it omitted a reference to salves being given equal rights, further claiming that this “blind spot” exists today in our culture.

4. In another 2001 radio interview State Senator Obama asserted “that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties in that it states what the State and Federal government could not do to you.” The flaw existed because the Constitution “does not state what the State and Federal governments should be obligated to do on our behalf.”

5. In discussing the Warren Court, Obama did not think it truly radical “in that it did not break free from the constraints placed upon it by the founders.” Further noted was that the court “never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in our society.”

Obama did attempt to blunt what was to become his mode of operation during his first presidential term when responding on December of 2008 to a Boston Globe questionnaire. Asked about the use of signing statement during the 2008 election, due to President Bush’s use of them, Obama stated:

“While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.” Obama further stated that as President he would not use signing statements “to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law or to alter law.”

Not unlike President Obama’s other failed promises, from 2009 to the end of 2011 President Obama wrote 19 signing statements. Some notable ones include:

1. In 2010 the Obama administration announced that it would not be defending the Defense of Marriage Act. This represented an expansion of power in the assertion that the executive branch can now decide what laws are and are not constitutional.

2. In 2012 the Obama administration decided that certain illegal aliens would not be deported if going to college or serving in the military.

3. In the President’s incursion into Libya, although limited under the war powers act to no more than a 90-day commitment of forces and only in response to a threat to US forces or interests, Obama asserted that the Security Council resolution represented the authority he needed to go to war and that allowing drones and intelligence officials to remain in Libya did not meet the war powers limitations as US troops themselves were not in danger.

Michael Barone noted these additional examples of abuse when the President grossly overstepped his Constitutional authority in this article published on October 11, 2012, A Lawyer by Training, Obama Ignores Rules of Laws:

4. Regarding the WARN Act which requires employers to give a 60-day notice of layoffs, including defense contractors, the administration has asked companies not to send out the notices and has even promised to pay companies’ WARN Act fines.

5. Regarding welfare waivers given by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius to states that want to relax work requirements, if not declared illegal, the result would be the rewriting of one of the most successful reforms of the last two decades, the Welfare Reform Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996.

Article II of the Constitution sets out the duties and powers of the president. Section 3 states that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

On November 6th the American people will decide whether the most powerful president ever will be allowed to become even more powerful, or whether they want a president who will respect the rule of law and view the Constitution as the framework of our government.

The consequences will indeed be grave if the American people choose to live under the oppressive thumb of government, rather than in a God-centered, rule-of-law nation that will have a chance to thrive far into the future under a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

We are given one vote. We must use it wisely as we educate others to choose the right path, understanding that history teaches that power attracts evil like flies and likewise creates evil out of otherwise good people. The American people would do well to remember Hitler and his rise to power in Germany.

Published at Illinois Review on Tuesday, October 30, 2012.

Advertisements

Located just forty miles Northwest of Chicago, Illinois, there are three houses in which one can live CHEAP, if one is lucky to be picked!, located in the Village of Barrington Hills in the Crabtree Nature Preserve.

These Crabtree Nature Preserve’s houses are three of the forty houses located within the 68,000-acre Cook County Forest Preserve System where one can live Cheap, if one is so lucky to be picked!

Note the words, “lucky to be picked”.

These three houses are inside the Barrington Hills Crabtree Nature Preserve, site of the July, 2007 largest marijuana ‘grow’ of over 38,000 marijuana plants. There are common administrative details procedures in place which apply to all the 40 houses in the 68,000-acre Cook County Forest Preserve District. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/04/05/forest-preserve-plans-to-borrow-money-to-add-land-upgrade-facilities.

All 40 homes are rented CHEAP, and the people staying there are lucky, all must be very well known by at least one Chicago politician, and these renters are not necessarily working for the Preserves as “Watchmen”!

Moreover, at the trial of the two arrested Crabtree Nature Preserve Mexican workers, were the renters living in the three houses on the Crabtree Nature Preserve ever asked to testify that they heard or saw or smelled anything as the marijuana fields were cleared, planted, irrigated, maintained, and gasoline was trucked in for water pumps to run Honda electrical generators? https://prev.dailyherald.com/story/?id=144121

What about the activity in the process of resupplying Mexican food and Mexican beer on a regular basis for the Mexican workers, which must have numbered more than the two Mexicans who were captured?

It is politically correct to refer to the men as “Mexican workers”, because at their trial both non-English-speaking men admitted to having lived in Mexico where they were recruited to work in the Barrington Hills Crabtree Nature Preserve.

Perhaps it was decided that recruited Mexican workers would “fit in nicely” with the undocumented Mexicans already living nearby in Barrington, Carpentersville, Elgin, Palatine and throughout the entire Sanctuary State of Illinois?

(A future article will address if Rangel and Verra revealed the name of their Mexican drug kingpin? Also, who, if anyone they might have trusted in the Barrington Hills Crabtree Nature Preserve Marijuana Operation, as Rangel, Verra and others prepared and cultivated the eleven ‘grow’ sites and waited for food and other supplies to be replenished with regularity.)

BOTTOM LINE: The Rent was and still is very low as the people living there are not necessarily working for the Cook County Preserves to help defray the housing breaks they are receiving.

Before April 4, 2012, the monthly rent to live as a resident in a Cook County home per month was only: 1.) $240 for a Residence attached to a Cook County Preserve; 2.) $240 for a residence adjacent to a Cook County Preserve; 3.) $480 for a Free-Standing Residence!

On April 4, 2012 the Cook County Forest Preserve Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance http://www.fpdcc.co1/), but the monthly rents are still very, very low : 1.) $468 for a Residence attached to a Cook County Preserve ; 2.) $585 for a Residence Adjacent to a Cook County District Facility ; and 3.) $702 for a Free-Standing Residence.

The ordinance further called for a review of Rental Agreements every two-years, with any monthly rental increased by changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Shouldn’t any rent evaluation instead be based on data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and area Realtors?

If Cook County pays the utilities, maintenance, outside landscaping, snow plowing, etc., the renters are even more lucky!

Should taxpayers continue to accept that Chicago politicians pick who are the lucky ones to rent the forty houses which already stood on property acquired by the forest preserve?

Thirty-seven years ago on March 9, 1975, an article in the Suburbanite Economist questioned the Cook County Preserve’s reserve long standing policy of letting some of its employees live in the preserve at a very low rent.

The charge at the time was that those fortunate enough to be assigned one of the homes were enjoying a low rent existence at the expense of the common taxpayer and that it took political clout to get them. The article advised the County board to take a look at the rents and the service performed by the Watchmen and make adjustments. http://newspaperarchive.com/suburbanite-economist/1975-03-09/page-3/

Fast forward to an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on December 7, 2003, Wallets of pols’ pals are greenest things in preserve, where a similar question was posed: Is the mission of the Cook County Forest Preserve “to hold and preserve land” in its natural state for future generations or to hold and preserve jobs for politicians? Related was how the Cook County Forest Preserves over the years has hired political loyalists at the lower ranks and ex-elected officials at the higher ranks.

The Sun-Times analysis of the Forest Preserve payroll found that most top-paying jobs — $80,000 and higher — had been awarded to politicians and the politically connected, not to experts in forestry or natural resource management.

Salaries are paid out of the Cook County Budget, not out of the Forest Preserve Budget!

The lengthy Sun-Times article further enumerated numerous examples of job patronage. Noted was how John Stroger, County Board President at a salary of $170,000, named the sheriff’s officer assigned to be his bodyguard and driver, Richard Waszak, as the new police chief for $82,000, after two Forest Preserve police employees were charged in a payroll fraud scheme (Of interest is that the name of Richard Waszak appears with frequency in Parts 1 – 4 of this writer’s continuing series of Local Citizen blog posts relative to the 2007 marijuana find in the Crabtree Cook County forest preserve.).

In regard to Stroger hiring relatives, friends or political allies for county jobs, Mayor Richard Daley’s brother, John Daley, who was the County board Finance Committee Chairman at the time, “vouched that Stroger makes sure all hires had the necessary credentials”. http://www.suffredin.org/news/newsitem.asp?language=english&newsitemid=712

Emmett Burke, son of prominent Chicago Alderman, John Burke, and his wife who is a Judge, was hired in 1997. Emmett lived in a CHEAP rental house inside the Spring Lake Forest Preserve in Barrington Hills.

Emmett Burke died at about 3:00 A.M. on January 31, 2007 at the age of 30, riding on a gravel access road normally of limits to snowmobiles near his home within the Spring Lake Forest Preserve in the early hours of the morning, when he veered off the road and struck a tree.

A 9/11 call was made at about 3:45 A.M. by an unidentified man riding another snowmobile with Emmett. At this early hour of the morning, the 911 call was picked up by the Barrington Hills Police Department, who contacted for Cook County Forest Preserve District, which has jurisdiction. Emmett Burke was pronounced dead at the scene at 8:30 A.M. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-02-02/news/0402020209_1_snowmobile-access-road-burke-family

Richard Woszak recounted during Emmett Burke’s Memorial Service that Emmett started in the Cook County Forest Preserve as a patrol officer, working his way up after serving with the canine unit and the search rescue unit. Upon his death, Emmett Burke ranked third in the Cook County Forest Preserve’s Chain of Command as Deputy Chief of Police helping to oversee a staff of 86 personnel. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=13076663

A medical examiner’s spokesman said he did not know if alcohol was involved as no results were available.

Was Chicago politics involved in that no autopsyy report was revealed to learn if Emmett and/or his friend were on drugs or alcohol at 3:00 in the morning, and who else was at the scene?

The Cook County Medical Examiner’s office would only say that Emmett Burke’s death was ruled an accident, nothing else, but wouldn’t taxpayers have been told more if Emmett had been a common citizen who died this way at 3:00 A.M. in the morning? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-02-02/news/0402020209_1_snowmobile-access-road-burke-family

By Nancy Thorner and Jane Keill –

Information about the attack has rapidly changed in the past weeks, and so has the Obama administration’s positions on it. The real story about what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in which four Americans were killed just gets worse and worse. Not only did Barack Obama and his team perpetuate a lie for nearly two weeks as to the cause of the attack, but in breaking news, we are now learning that during the attack, Americans called out for help, and were denied any assistance.

For several weeks, in an effort to write an article that would relate our frustration and dismay over the lack of transparency and honesty that has been forthcoming from the White House since the 9/11 Benghazi terrorist attack, we asked ourselves this question: What if we pretended to interview Barack Obama about the Benghazi attack whenever more news surfaced, asking him questions through a series of fake interviews?

We would further relate, continuing in our “Let’s Pretend” mood, that although the President agreed to sit down with us, he refused to answer any of our questions, except for one answer, “The attack was caused by an inflammatory video that was insulting to Muslims.” Beyond that, he wouldn’t say anything.

Our imaginary interviews with President Obama ended on October 25 so our thoughts could be set down to submit to Illinois Review. Little did we know that on Thursday, October 26, these new revelations would surface through Breaking News by way of Fox News:

“Sources who were on the ground in Libya, ready and available for military action during the attack on the U.S. consulate, were told to ‘stand down’ rather than to help the ambassador’s team. When shots began to be heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11, the CIA denied approval of action despite multiple requests.”

It is outrageous that the mainstreet media refuses to hold the President’s feet to the fire, instead it elects to play footsie with the President.

Four years is a long time for this nation, its people and the world to live with a Commander-in-Chief and a President who can’t be trusted.

In our series of pretend conversations with Obama, we would ask these questions:

Before the attack:

1. The President of Libya, Mohammed el-Megarif, says he advised you three days in advance that there were possible attacks coming up for the 9/11 anniversary. Did you receive those warnings? What did you do in response to them?

2. What steps did you take to protect our properties and interests around the world before the anniversary of 9/11?

3. What steps did you take specifically in Libya?

4. Are there Marine guards at all our embassies? If not, why not?

5. Do all our Marines have bullets in their guns? If not, why not? Who made this rule?

6. How many full intelligence briefings did you attend in the week before the attack in Libya?

7. Did you know that Ambassador Chris Stevens would be in Benghazi on 9/11? Did you warn him there might be an attack there on 9/11?

8. Did you know Ambassador Stevens personally? Did you know Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, the Navy Seals who were killed with him? Did you know Sean Smith, the foreign services officer who was also killed?

9. Did you write personal letters of condolence to each of the families of the victims?

Immediately after the attack:

1. When, how and by whom, were you told about the attack? Was this a ‘3 AM’ phone call?

2. Why after the attack, did you go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? Why did you not stay in Washington and try to find out what had happened in Benghazi?

3. Why, in the days after the attack, did you go on the David Letterman show, party with Jay-Z, Beyonce, Anne Hathaway, Jerry Springer, have your picture taken with a pirate and go on The View? Do you think it was Presidential to do that?

4. Was Sufyan ben Qumu actually involved in the attack? (He’s the Gitmo detainee who was released in 2007 to Libya after we were assured he would remain in prison.)

5. Was Al Qaeda involved in the attack?

6. Ever since you ordered the death of Osama bin Laden, you insisted you would not ‘spike the football’ about it. Yet at the Democrat convention and thereafter, you, Biden, Axelrod, Clinton and many others, have constantly chanted, “Osama’s dead and General Motors is alive’. How did this contribute to the anger that Muslims around the world feel about the USA and perhaps lead to the deaths of our four Benghazi representatives?

During the weeks after the attack:

1. Why do you think the Muslim rioters in various countries were chanting ‘Obama, Obama, we’re all Osamas!”

2. Five days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice (come on now, you didn’t know she was our Ambassador to the United Nations, did you?) went on all the Sunday talk shows and repeated over and over again that the attack was the result of the nasty movie mentioned above. Was she lying?

3. What instructions did you give her to tell about the Benghazi attack?

4. What did you tell Hillary, David Axelrod, Biden, Jay Carney and everyone else to tell as the ‘story’?

5. Why did you go to the United Nations on September 27 and continue to insist that the attack was the result of the nasty movie?

6. Why did you and Hillary make a tape and have it played all over Pakistan that blamed the attack on the nasty movie?

7. Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and our embassies are under her direction. What was Hillary’s responsibility in this?

8. When you were asked during an interview if Egypt was an ally or an enemy, why could you not answer the question?

So, it really was a terrorist attack:

1. Although early on it had become pretty evident that this was a terrorist attack, possibly with Al Qaeda connections, why was it eight days before your administration began to admit that?

2. If it was a terrorist attack, why did you not have Amb. Susan Rice return to the Sunday talk shows, and retract her earlier statements? Will you fire Rice for lying to the American public about the source of the attacks?

3. Why did you and Hillary not make another video for Pakistan and the rest of the Arab world to retract your insistence that the nasty movie caused the attack?

4. Shortly after the assault, CNN was able to get into the scene of the attack and found the journal of Amb. Stevens. In it he said he was worried about his safety. You said the FBI had been sent to begin a thorough investigation into the attack. Why did CNN find this journal and not the FBI?

5. Why was the FBI still in Tripoli while CNN and the Washington Post were able to get into the US compound in Benghazi and collect consular records and material?

6. Recent news reports also indicate that the State Department was contacted by the Libyan US embassy before the attacks with a request for more protection in US enclaves there. These requests were reportedly turned down. What has been Hillary’s explanation for turning down these requests?

7. On September 28th, the American news media were finally reporting the attack was a coordinated terrorist assault. What information about this did you have before 9/28?

8. Why did the FBI just get to Benghazi on October 5, and only stay 24 hours and then left again? Was there nothing left to find after 3 ½ weeks?

9. What happens when the Harvey Weinstein movie ‘Seal Team Six’ is shown on 11/4, two days before the election? The movie trumpets your giving the order to kill bin Laden and ‘spikes the football’ about your part in his death. What plans do you have if riots break out all over the world because of this movie? After all, look what happened all over the Muslim world when they were upset about the nasty video that caused the Benghazi attack. What effect will riots all over the Muslim world have on your possible re-election two days later?

More recently, the news about the Benghazi attack seems to have something new every day. We continued to interview Obama and he continued to refuse to answer):

1. Several security officers from Libya and the State Department have testified before a House investigation committee that they gave multiple early warnings about other recent attacks in Benghazi. When were you told about this information?

2. These witnesses have also indicated they made multiple requests for additional security for Libya and were turned down. Why were they turned down?

3. If money was the reason additional assistance was not sent to Libya, how do you justify the money spent on buying Chevy Volts and building a charging station for them at our Embassy in Austria? Couldn’t we have used some of that money in Libya for security?

4. Why has your Press Secretary, Jay Carney, not been able to give a straight answer to questions at press conferences? He keeps changing your position on this issue.

5. At the recent Vice-Presidential debate, Joe Biden stated that ‘We did not know of any requests for more security in Libya’. In view of all the additional information and testimony that has come out, why did he say this?

6. David Axelrod, from your campaign, was on Fox News Sunday on 10/14, and he said all questions about the Benghazi attack should be addressed to the State Department where this type of issue is handled. Was he throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus? Was he trying to save your skin for you?

7. Why did Hillary throw herself under the bus by admitting responsibility for the handling of the attack? Why did it take her almost five weeks to realize the State Department is in charge of this type of thing?

8. Will you ask for Hillary’s resignation as Secretary of State? If not, why not?

9 Why did she make this admission just before your second debate with Romney? What did you discuss with her about this acknowledgement and the timing of it?

10. During the debate with Romney, you insisted that you talked about ‘terror’ attacks the day after the Benghazi assault, and indeed you did mention ‘terrorist attacks’ in the Rose Garden, but it was in a much broader context than the Libya raid. Even moderator Candy Crowley admitted that – after the debate, of course.

If you thought it was a terrorist attack in the Rose garden the day after it happened, why did you and Hillary and Susan Rice and Axelrod and Jay Carney and Biden all spend the next two weeks insisting Benghazi was the result of the nasty video about Muslims? Why were you so confused about this?

As of October 25, 2012, the Benghazi attack continues to play in the news:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported that within 24 hours of the attack, he had sent a message indicating the attack was the result of militants and not because of a mob.

1. CBS and Reuters have released evidence that e-mails that detailed the first few hours of the attack were sent to all pertinent parties in your administration, including the White House situation room. What did you know about these e-mails and the information they contained?

2. Some of these e-mails reportedly said the attacks were planned and were terrorist attacks. If you had this information within hours of the assault, why did you, Hillary, Susan Rice and most of your administration spend the next two weeks telling everyone from the news media to the UN to Pakistan that the attack was the result of the nasty video?

3. According to various news reports, the battle at Benghazi lasted between 6-7 hours. Reports also indicate that US drones were sent over the area to observe what was happening. If this is true, why didn’t you send in military reinforcements or a rapid response team (from Italy or Spain) to give assistance?
Did you do anything to try and rescue our Ambassador and the other Americans under attack?

4. If the drones sent images over the satellite network, were you able to see what was happening? If you could see what was happening, why didn’t you send help?

5. Even as you, Mr. President, continue to vow that the perpetrators of the Benghazi consulate attack will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities.

He has spoken to a New York Times reporter from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. The FBI, when it was in Libya, did not talk with him. If the NYT could find him to interview, why haven’t your people found him? What is the status of the investigation? What have the Libyans done about it?

6. Will the investigation of the attack be completed before the November election? Oh, of course. What was I thinking? Never mind.

Realizing that any coverup attempts are many times worse than the actual “crime” itself, if and when we do decide to continue our pretend interviews with President Obama, the following two questions would head our list:

1. Mr. President, how did you think you could get away with spinning a story for weeks about Benghazi that exonerated the White House from all blame in what was known from the beginning as an organized terrorist attack? Why, instead, did you and your administration cling to the spontaneous attack script prompted by what was an obscure video?

2. Mr. President, was it your purpose to have the American people believe that the threat from Al Queda was over with the capture of Bin Laden and that knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack would have shattered the misconception you have presented to the American people?

Now might the mainstream media do its job by asking questions in real time of President Obama? To start with: “Mr. President, there seems to be so much more information that is available than you are telling us. It’s clear that you knew a great deal more. It’s also clear that you have been lying to us since the beginning. From the information we do know – from public sources – we can only draw the following conclusions:

-If you were warned beforehand that something was astir in Libya and you did nothing to forestall or prevent it, then you were grossly negligent and derelict in your duty to our overseas delegations.

-If you didn’t know anything was coming, you should have anticipated that something was likely to happen on the anniversary of 9/11, and should have been prepared for it.

-If you received information from the early messages and the drone images and the requests for help during the attack and you did nothing to try and assist the people in the Benghazi consulate, then you are utterly responsible for the deaths of four Americans and you should resign immediately. Their deaths are on your shoulders.

The American people deserve the truth before Nov. 6th!

Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

Now that the three presidential debates and the vice-president match-up are history, the end game is upon us. President Obama is asking for our vote to elect him to another four years in office, but has Obama’s record during his first term given most Americans the reassurance that another four years wouldn’t trigger a status quo performance on steroids?

Romney’s debate performances erased the Obama campaign’s effort (down the drain went countless of millions of dollars) to portray Mitt Romney as a rich fool who cares nothing about the middle class. Instead, Romney came across as one who looked presidential, had command of the facts, and whose economic background would bode will for this nation. With little time left before November 6th, Obama is rushing to define himself.

How might this be possible upon consideration of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012? Here’s the upshot: 1) Under Obama. for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent $10.95. That’s like a family who makes $70,000 a year — and already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year. 2) In fiscal year 2012 ending on September 30, the government took in $2,449 trillion but spent $3,538 trillion, 44 percent more than it had available to spend. The resulting deficit was $1,089 trillion. 3) During Obama’s first term the national debt ballooned to over $16 trillion, more than $6 trillion higher than during 2008 when Obama bemoaned what he called the “orgy of spending and enormous deficits” under Bush. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/7-eleven-presidency_654846.html

And what did Obama recently say about the debt?: “We don’t have to worry about it in the short-term.” In other words, if you have $7, spend $11 instead, and let future generations of Americans worry about it.

Consider also before voting:

1. Gas prices have doubled since the Obama administration took over,.

2. College Graduates are living at home because they can’t find work.

3. Most peoples’ net worth has gone down considerably in the last 4 years.

4. Class welfare and racism have been pushed further to split this country.

5. More people are on food stamps than ever before.

6. President missed more half of his 1/2-hour Foreign Relations briefing in the White House.

7. GM still owes tax payers billions. Chevy Volt is a disaster,

8. President’s budget was turned down by 100 percent of Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

9. President’s comment — “You didn’t build that” — was an affront to entrepreneurs and small business people. Clearly Obama doesn’t understand Capitalism and Free Enterprise.

10. Green energy companies like Solyndra — 36 so far — having received federal support from taxpayers, have either gone bankrupt or have laid off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

11. European-Style government doesn’t work and has never worked in the world’s history. Observe Greece, Spain and other European countries who are suffering right now. It is the ability for people to work hard and be successful in their own right, not Government handouts.

12. Emails released on October 23 show that the White House knew the Benghazi attack of the US.consulate on 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a spontaneous attack over a video. Unfolding is a series of emails alerts on 9/11 by the State Department Operations Center — as Obama administration officials were monitoring the attack in real time — sent through distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation room and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. http://news.yahoo.com/email-alerts-describe-9-11-benghazi-consulate-assault-015521878–abc-news-politics.html

13. For Christians, America’s Most Biblically Hostile U.S. President with Acts of hostility toward people of ‘Biblical faith and Acts of hostility toward Biblical values. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBprinterfriendly.asp?id=106938

Reason number twelve should be deeply troubling to the American people, for if our President is capable of such deception where four Americans were murdered, including Ambassador Stevens, what else is he capable of? Honesty and integrity is demanded of our president. President Obama must be held accountable by the American people who elected him, having believed in him back in 2008.

You must decide, but will some of you allow yourself to be fooled once again by a smooth talker who continues to make promises, even though first term promises were abject failures, and in light of how Obama refuses to admit blame or to accept responsibility for his misguided and disastrous actions, not wanting to destroy his own self image, thereby putting himself and his own welfare above that of the American people?

‘Down-Ballot’ voting

October 25, 2012

By Nancy Thorner & Jane Keill –

In our article published at Illinois Review on Oct. 23, “It’s the Electoral College, Stupid!”, we explained how important it is to vote in the upcoming election. Even though Illinois, as an all-Democrat-all-the-time state, will have its allotted 20 Electoral votes go to Obama, attention must be directed toward what is called ‘down-ballot” voting. Quite simply, you still need to vote for the candidates who are lower down on the ballot after the President/Vice-President slots at the top.

With all the hype that took place during the time span of the three presidential debates and the one vice-presidential match-up, many times it seemed like voting for president and vice president took precedence over the other races. The discussions around the water cooler at work or in the privacy of our homes were all centered on the choices at the top of the ballot.

There will, however, also be US Congressmen on the ballot who have to be re-elected every two years. There will be some Senators who are up for re-election in their six-year-term-rotation. For those of you in Illinois, Dick Durbin is up for election in 2014; Mark Kirk will be up in 2016. Now is the time to look ahead, Illinois, especially for those who espouse conservative Republican Party values. We need to search for candidates now to defeat our far left Democrat senator, Dick Durbin. And we need to look for a replacement for our much too moderate Republican senator, Mark Kirk, whose voting record makes it difficult to decide which party he has really pledged his loyalty to, despite the “R” after his name.

Lower down on the ballot will be local elections to your state capitols – your governors, representatives and senators. In some ways they are just as important as your national choices. Over the last 40 years, elected Democrat officials and legislators in Illinois have destroyed the state’s economy, its business status, its educational competence and its physical structure. Yet year after year voters in Illinois, so indoctrinated by party politics, blindly vote Democratic even though it has hurt them badly over the years. Many of these drone-like voters dwell in the city of Chicago where the Cook County and Chicago political machines demand and maintain party loyalty from its huge Democrat base.

Even lower down on the ballot you will most likely find a long list of judges (in Illinois, they are elected), and having no idea who is who, you’ll have to use the newspaper recommendations and hope they are half-way accurate.

Finally, you may have a referendum which will affect your state, county or city. Illinois has one this election which is related to the voting percentage on pension changes by our legislature.

In searching the Internet to write this article, we discovered a website (http://occupywallst.org/forum/not-just-potus-down-ballot-voting-info-4-u) that led us to a site recently set up, where one can select any state to learn where candidates stand on the issues in their community. You can also find and print out your own personalized ballot. It’s called “Voter 411 Voting Guide”: http://www.vote411.org/ballot#.UIDh8mfWrU5

Information can be printed or e-mailed to use as a reference when you actually vote. As all information is lost when you leave the site, writing in your name and address, as required to gain access to your voting information, does not pose a problem.

We were surprised when checking out the site that there were four presidential candidates on the ballots:

Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Barack Obama (Democrat)
Mitt Romney (Republican)
Jill Stein (Green Party)

So, please don’t think your vote doesn’t count. Think of all the voters in California, Illinois, New York and other states who have been electing Democrats for years. Now, look at what condition those states are in.

That’s why your vote is important. A familiar quote, attributed to either Alexis de Tocqueville or Joseph de Maistre states, “In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.” You vote for it; you live with it.

YOU HAVE A VOICE!

YOU HAVE A CHOICE!

USE THEM BOTH !

Part 4 in continuing series related to Crabtree marijuana bust in 2007 by Nancy J. Thorner

A visit to Barrington Hills Illinois will show it is an upscale community with quiet, winding roads and grand mansions that dot its rustic, natural landscape.

Barrington Hills, Illinois gained national recognition as home to the Cook County Crabtree Nature Preserve, where at least 30,000 plants were in 11 separate fields, worth up to $30 million were discovered growing just yards from busy roads and a few hundred yards from the Barrington Hills Police Station.

Cook County Forest Preserve Police Chief Richard Waszak called this marijuana cultivating operation the most sophisticated operation he had ever seen, one that wasn’t merely a locally grown illegal enterprise for private use.

The Crabtree Nature Preserve “Discovery” was reported as the largest marijuana growing operation ever uncovered in America in 2007, and still is.

Regarding this “Discovery”, Chief Waszak described it as anything but a fly-by-the night-operation, that it must have taken a lot of work to set the ‘grow’ up.

Regarding the two workers found tending the fields who were arrested and later sentenced to two years, Waszak thought it likely that the two men, Rangel and Verra, were just two of many field workers involved with the hidden fields who must have been in place for a long time. http://www.marijuana.com/threads/cops-seize-30-000-plants-near-my-town.211836/

Barrington Hills, with Crabtree Forest Preserve’s location within its zip code, is considered a very wealthy residential village, easily verified. Why was the Crabtree Forest Preserve in Barrington Hills chosen for such a massive ‘grow’ operation and why would drug cartels set up a very large marijuana growing operation without fear of being detected?

One factor in the drug cartel’s selection of the Barrington Hills Crabtree site is its proximity to Chicago which serves as the base for distributing marijuana across the Midwest.

A 2008 article indicated that because of the tightening of the U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement is seeing more locally grown marijuana using America’s public lands.

District Police Chief Richard Waszak (in 2008), stated that there has been an increase in marijuana farming operation in recent years in the 640,000 acres of the Cook County Forest Preserve District. Public land is being used to set up marijuana growing operators to avoid having private property seized if crops are spotted by investigators.

It is most unusual that no guns were mentioned in the Crabtree Nature Preserve operation marijuana discovery, as criminal activity and drugs often go hand in hand. Many times the crops are watched by armed guards to protect other dope dealers who steal crops, know as “patch pilots.” http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/8925574#8925574

What makes the risk of discovery, arrest, and time spent in prison a worthwhile risk with Mexican drug cartels who set up pot grow fields in national parks and public lands? Might money enter into the mix? A google of “marijuana found growing on pubic lands,” located many references to pot growing sites in pubic parks and on public land during this current year. https://www.google.com/search?q=2012%2C+Marijuana+found+growing+on+public+lands&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-

More than 550,000 marijuana plants, with an estimated street value of $1 billion, were seized during an eight-week crackdown this summer when targeting illegal marijuana growing operations on public lands across seven Western states. Pot farms were also uprooted in several national parks, including Death Valley, and in Sequoia and Mendocino National Forests. According to DEA Administrator Michele M. Leohart, “Marijuana trafficking organizations seek to turn our nation’s parks and public lands into their own drug havens.” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/1-billion-in-pot-uprooted-from-public-lands-in-california-wesPot

Price per marijuana plant varies. On August 22 of this year, 30 newly flowering pot plants were found growing in an Indiana corn field with an estimated worth of $30,000 or $1,000 per plant. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-22/marijuana-plants-drought/57203590/1

Sheriff Lt. Hank Turner of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department gives the value per plant as $3,000, “whether it is young or old, cultivated by an experienced grower or a first-time.”

Sheriff Turner further admits that although the across-the-board, per-plant value estimate may not be precise in every cultivation scenario, it produces a reliable frame of reference for the public as to the overall size of the marijuana market each year in San Diego County.” http://weedtracker.com/cannabis/topic/285584-how-much-is-a-cannabis-plant-worth-san-diego-says-3000/

Regarding the street value of marijuana, a 2012 CA Department of Alcohol and Drugs report cites the average cost for one ounce of marijuana in California as between 250-400. Cost be be considerable lower or higher and varies for many reasons including quality, potency, availability, geographic location, or method of growth. http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/marijuana/WhatisMJ.shtml

In Illinois the average marijuana price per ounce for high quality is $402.16; $292.57 for medium quality; and $20.24 for low quality, while in Chicago high quality marijuana per ounce goes for $600 an ounce. http://www.priceofweek.com/

With this in mind, why a drug cartel was willing to take the risk to grow pot in Crabtree Nature Preserve becomes obvious. First of all, there is little risk ! Aren’t you puzzled that it is a fact that Federal and the State of Illinois and Cook County and Barrington Hills Law Enforcement never caught even one drug king pin after the Crabtree Nature Preserve Bust, the Largest Marijuana Operation in America?

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

As expected, the President stuck to his talking points in Tuesday night’s second presidential debate without anything to back them up. But how could his approach have been any different? Obama’s failed record speaks for itself. But to Obama, if distortions of his dismal four-year record are repeated often enough, without deviating from the script, they will resonate with voters and stick in their minds come election time. But will this approach work? The second presidential debate on Tuesday, October 16 seems to have engendered a different result.

In a championship fight, the challenger can’t win on points. He needs a knockout! In a split decision, the champion prevails. In the first debate, Governor Romney was the clear champion, in what the boxing world would call a TKO – Technical Knockout. When the contender can’t count to ten on his own, the referee counts for him. In the second debate, Romney stayed on his feet, punched and counterpunched. Obama tried to regain the belt, but failed to knock Romney to the mat. He didn’t even win on points, unless “Talking” points count.

When people act like victims, they often become victims. That’s how it works in the schoolyard or on the job. When our ambassador to Libya was killed, and the consulate burned and looted, the President and his representatives apologized for the act of a phony movie producer, and failed to defend the basic international law, not to mention our founding principles. Our embassies are legally on United States soil. We have a right to defend them from within, with force if necessary, and the host nation has an obligation to defend them from without.

He failed to denounce terrorism, as though that word freezes his tongue to the roof of his mouth. On or off the record, he has never denounced sectarian violence, as though that would offend the sectarians. Those apologies, which continued well after the facts were known, say that we were the victim in Libya, and invite further attacks. How do you “offend” someone who wants to kill you? Why would you care?

The victim mentality went a step further when a question about Libya was asked during the 2nd presidential debate. CNN debate moderator, Candy Crowley, quickly stepped forward and out of her official moderator role to defend Obama, from what she perceived as a Romney attempt to victimize Obama, when Romney suggested the President had failed to call the Benghazi attack a” terror” attack in the Rose Garden on the day after 9/11, or for many days thereafter. The next day Obama was no longer a victim when Crowley had to walk back her untimely and uncalled statement and admit that Romney had been correct in his debate analysis.

According to an article by Dave Boyer published in the Washington Times on Thursday, October 18, Obama has yet to confirm the “terrorist” act in Libya, as he attempts to avoid the stench and the fall out from the 9/11 consulate attack.

If you believe the Obama campaign in its ongoing effort to win over women voters, Governor Romney doesn’t care about women or their votes. Translated, this means Romney is against abortions, or at least averse to paying for them with borrowed money. Ask yourself, “How many women do I know who have had an abortion?” Then ask, “How many women do I know who are looking for work or whose husbands or children are looking for work?” Instead, women are concerned with the economy and the welfare of themselves and their families, such as the increase of food prices at the grocery store, how much it costs to fill up their vehicles, and the inability of recent college graduates to find jobs. That’s why 51% of women got in step with Romney after the first debate.

How ironic that the Obama campaign should accuse Romney of a so-called war on women. A former aide to the Obama administration once called the White House “hostile” to female employees. Anita Dunn, who recently served as Obama’s moderator during debate prep, was also the former White House communications director. Dunn was quoted in Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men as saying, “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace … because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Consider the question asked about tax policy. Once again President Obama repeated his claim that Governor Romney and the Republicans refuse to make the rich “pay a dime” to offset the deficit. Obviously, that’s not what either the Republicans nor Governor Romney said, before, during or after the debate. In fact, the “rich” pay the vast bulk of the income tax collected. The top 1% of earners pay 40%, and the top 10% pay over 80%.

The President wants to take more from the big pieces of the pie and distribute them to those with smaller pieces. But it’s always “THE pie,” as if it is the same pie yesterday, today and forever! Governor Romney’s plan would keep the same distribution of taxes at the present level, but structure it so that the makers and shakers of the economy have an incentive to make the “pie” bigger, and keep more of the “pie” they make grow. Everybody, including the government, would get bigger pieces. We need this incentive to move forward, unlike the paltry, one-time tax breaks the President would grant for hiring veterans, windmills on the rooftops, or whatever.

On energy Policy, the President countered Governor Romney by stating that oil and gas production is at an all-time high. Romney accurately responded that the growth is from drilling on private land, and that leases for government land have declined 40% under the current administration, and no new permits have been issued in the Gulf (all permits approved by this administration were initiated under President Bush.) When challenged over the drop in permits, the President dodged by repeating his claim that oil production is up, this time louder, and in Romney’s face.

Unfortunately neither candidate brought up the fact the the EPA is actively trying to shut down “fracking” operations and coal mining. Over 20% of our electric generation capacity is threatened with shutdown because they are older facilities which use coal. The pipeline from Canadian oil fields to refineries in Texas was blocked by the President, and replaced with a segment (along with 19 other pipelines) from Kansas southward. Nobody said it, but this is “The Pipeline From Nowhere.”

It is amazing that Obama’s approval ratings remain so high among the American people. One thing the two presidential debates have so far indicated is that the millions of dollars Obama spent on ads, prior to the two debate to define Romney as an unacceptable presidential candidates, seems to have represented Democratic campaign money thrown down the drain. Through his two debate appearances, Romney was elevated to an equal footing with Obama by the American people. Many asked themselves, “Where is this mean, uncaring rich person that we saw portrayed on our TV’s day-after-day?”

Romney spoke and was heard. Hopefully enough of the American people will have heard and will decide that four more years of Obama would give this nation and its people more misery with further deterioration of jobs and economic wealth, especially among the middle class. If Obama should win another four-year term, this nation might never be able to recover from the consequences of continuing Obama’s already failed policies, let alone all the executive orders and mandates he would issue as a run-around Congress to put in place the “share the wealth” philosophy that he so fervently embraces.

Obama likes to say “Everybody should have a fair shot.” What, exactly, is a “fair shot.” The only solution he offers is to tax the rich and give to the poor. Cut up the big pieces of pie and stick them to the smaller pieces. This is a destructive solution. It’s like the “bounty system” recently scandalizing the NFL, where the strategy was to injure the good players so that the weaker players would have a “fair shot” at the championship. That worked well, didn’t it.

Posted initially at Illinois Review on Monday, October 22.

By Nancy Thorner and Jane Keill –

It’s most interesting, and sometimes great fun, to argue endlessly about what happened in the one and only Vice Presidential candidate debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden on Thursday, October 11. In our opinion, which surely is not unlike those of many others, Joe Biden’s behavior displayed the abject fool that he is. Unfortunately, Joe Biden is the

Vice-President of the United States! At the time it was a blood-pressure-raising event and the latest polls showed Romney ahead by 1% – then Obama was ahead in Ohio, but not Florida. And, on and on and on.

Thank goodness the results in the aftermath of the 2nd Presidential debate between Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have erased, at least for the time being, our blood-pressure-related stress! The latest Gallup poll, as of Oct. 19, found that Mitt Romney has a seven-point lead over President Barack Obama.

Maybe you’re more interested in Dancing With the Stars or American Idol, and you just won’t care until election day when you finally have to make up your mind. But, turn your mind back to the 2008 election with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. At the time most of us did the same thing as we are now. We obsessed about the latest media-provoked circus, which was in keeping with the media’s objective. In the meantime, Barack Obama and his team marched steadily down the road to the magic number of 270 electoral votes, the number it takes to win a presidential election. President Obama’s doing the same thing now, abetted by the mainstream media.

As you may remember in 2000, it is not who wins the popular vote who becomes President. It is the person with the most electoral votes. This was brought home by the Bush v Gore and the Supreme Court decision. Florida was the big state of hope in that year.

Those of us in all-Democrat-all-the-time states — Illinois (20), California (55), New York (29) — understand fully why we rarely see the candidates or their ads. We have been written off, or maybe we should say, automatically put in Obama’s electoral vote count column. We don’t really get a say in our state elections, but this does not in any way mean that we shouldn’t vote! It only means that these states, and their respective electoral college votes, are already in the bag for the Democrats. When adding three more states to the mix which usually go to the Democrats — (Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14) — Obama has an electoral count vote total of 139 before the election is even held.

From there on it’s all up for grabs, which is why everyone is watching the ‘swing’ states of Ohio (18), Virginia (13), No. Carolina (15), Florida (29). These states have the next level of electoral votes that can lead to a win. Texas, with its 38 votes, has been purposely left out here because the state usually goes Republican.

It is not our intent to predict which candidate will win which swing state. The Daily Swing State Tracking poll for the Rasmussen Reader on Friday, October 19, shows however, an interesting comparison. Of eleven key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012, Romney has 49% of the vote to President Obama’s 47%. Romney leads by three in Virginia. He’s ahead by four in Florida and six in North Carolina.

An October 19th Gallup Poll release of likely voters in which all were asked who they would vote for if the presidential election were held today, the response was 45% for Obama and 51% for Romney. The margin of error is given as +2 percentage points.

Despite the current poll tabulations which currently favor Mitt Romney, it is impossible to predict for certainty what the results of the November 6th end game will bring. At this cross road before Election Day, it is wise to pay less attention to the flak that serves as distraction, but instead keep your eye on the prize:

The White House
The House of Representatives
The Senate

Do not obsess about the polls. Do not become discouraged. Do not think your vote doesn’t count. Do keep your eye on the prize! And, keep your eye on the electoral count!

Initially published at Illinois Review on Saturday, October 20,
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 08:08 AM | Permalink

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold

When we mentioned assets as equity or debt in a previous post, we neglected to mention that assets can also take the form of cash, rather than investments or growth. In a strange twist of logic, saving money may be harmful to the economy, because savings don’t yield much in terms of earnings, and further don’t translate into goods, services and jobs.

Companies and individuals are retaining cash as a hedge against an uncertain future, as cash on hand allows companies to react quickly to changes in the economic environment. Unfortunately, this practice is especially reviled by Keynesian economists, and frequently cited by Democrats as proof that corporations and wealthy individuals are holding back the recovery. The implied threat to seize this cash in some way becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The greater the threat, the more retrenchment against that threat.

For multi-national corporations, the easiest way to keep their cash out of reach of Washington is to keep revenues generated overseas in those countries, under governments more friendly to business. This practice is, in fact, encouraged by Washington, to the extent that repatriated cash from foreign operations is subject to double taxation – in the country of origin and the United States. Many countries are more generous in allowing credit for taxes paid to other countries, notably throughout the European Union.

Individuals receive much less protection, except that foreign corporations benefit from favorable tax treatment in those nations, resulting in higher profits and dividends, hence higher returns for investors. Distributions to U. S. citizens are taxed as income, regardless of the country of origin, but the investments which generate this income benefit other countries even more. A company in the Cayman Islands has a 20% tax advantage over companies based in the United States. People invest there, Including Harry Reid (Senate majority leader) and Sally Wasserman Schultz (DNC Chairman), not for tax evasion, but because they can make more money even after taxes. As a result, our tax policy creates jobs in other countries, rather than in the United States. You can’t say jobs are being shipped overseas when they were never in the US, but the effect is the same.

Regarding those in the so-called middle class, they have less to spend and even less inclination to do so. If they buy cars and houses, it is because they have no alternative. If they move to find work or keep their job, or need a reliable way to get to work, they must dig into their savings, or do whatever else is called for, like skimping on necessities or borrowing if possible. The recent bump in car sales and real estate is probably temporary, because cars wear out (the average age is now over 9 years), and you need a place to live relatively close to work. Perhaps you know a “two coast” family, split apart by their jobs. Maybe it’s good for the economy, on paper anyway, to pay both mortgage AND rent, when the family can’t sell their house and move together.

Quite surprising was President Obama’s closing statement in the 2nd presidential debate on Tuesday, Oct. 16. Obama, with a straight face, told the American people that he believes in the free enterprise system. This came from one who has single-handedly destroyed jobs in the energy and manufacturing sectors with his tax philosophy based on redistribution of wealth (a trickle-up economy) realized by soaking the rich as a way to spread the wealth around. Mr. President, when has a poor person ever created a job? Unfortunately, this is not the only example where the President says one thing and does another.

Placing the burden of taxation on the wealthy has another effect which is often ignored. The vicissitudes of the economy affects investment income even more than wages. When you depend on taxing the wealthy, this volatility affects the ability of governments to plan for the future; and an extended dip in the economy causes a disproportionate drop in tax revenue. This affects states as well as the nation. California is a notable example where even now, tax increases are directed to the most successful companies and individuals. The effect is compounded when these individuals move from the state, or remove their assets, sometimes out of the country. While it is politically safe to tax a tiny minority to the benefit of the majority, it divides the country between those who produce and those who consume, and places few boundaries on what the majority are willing to spend.

Bad government in California translates to a booming economy in Texas. The West coast, otherwise known as the “Left” coast, is being left behind. The East coast, notably New York, has the same problems, which generates the same responses. Assets are streaming to the south and midwest. The Northeast should, perhaps, be relabeled the “Wrong” coast. “Right” just doesn’t seem to work in this context.

Romney has the right idea.

Published initially at Illinois Review on Thursday, October 18.

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

The Obama campaign accuses Governor Romney of politicizing the deaths of four Americans in the Libyan consulate. It would be more accurate to say that Romney is informing the public about the inept way in which Obama and the State Department handled the aftermath of the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, which seems fully justified given the gravity of the situation with tones of a coverup.

In the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday, October 11, Joe Biden said the Administration didn’t blame terrorists for the attack, because they didn’t know until later about the nature of the attack. Yet from a Reuters report the day after the Benghazi assault on September 12, officials related how some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda’s north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaueda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved. According to one U.S. official, “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack and appeared to be preplanned.”

It is curious that the Administration didn’t report what later proved to be true, but responded immediately, and continued to report for nine days, that the attack was instigated by a 14 minute video, which proved to be false. Apparently it’s OK to make up a story that fits your “Al Qaeda is Dead but General Motors is Alive” narrative whether or not you have facts to back it up.

Biden also said “We didn’t know…” that the embassy had requested additional security, based on a series of attacks leading up to the anniversary of 9/11.

It’s quite possible that the White House didn’t know the details, since that would be handled at a lower level in the State Department. However, the reason this request was denied was consistent with White House policy to maintain a low profile in Libya and elsewhere in the middle east.

History repeats itself if we ignore its lessons. Maintenance of a low profile is also the reason Delta Force in Somalia, 1993, was denied tanks and armored vehicles, and air support from C-130 gunships. As a result, we lost two Blackhawk helicopters, 19 dead and 100 wounded soldiers in that incident, as described in the book and movie “Blackhawk Down!” (Casualties would have been far greater if the Pakistanis in Somalia left their tanks and APC’s at home, or refused to come to America’s aid.) It is probably the reason 256 American soldiers were lost in the attack in Lebanon under Ronald Reagen, where the Marine barracks were left essentially unguarded. It is likely the reason we continue to take casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan – keep a low profile so we can pull out quietly — along with the infamous “rules of engagement,” which also come from the top down.

Governor Romney’s speech, 16 hours after the incident, was to decry the Administration’s apology over an obscure video, and to point out that America’s interests were at stake – sovereignty of embassy property and personnel, and the rights and principles which Americans hold dear. You don’t need the details when you know the United States has been attacked, and the Administration failed to acknowledge these basic facts!

The next day, more than 24 hours after the event, President Obama denounced Governor Romney for speaking, not the Libyan murderers, and then only after a campaign speech in Las Vegas and an appearance on “The View.” Obama’s most significant statement of the day was to the ladies of “The View,” that he was there only as “eye candy.” Indeed! Now, four weeks later, we find that Romney was right, but Obama’s, the State Department and Susan Rice were wrong all along.

Now fast forward to Monday, October 15 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, more that a month after Benghazi, Libya assault on 9/11, and while away from American soil and on a South American junket in Peru, South America, told CNN that she is responsible for the breach of security that led too the terrorist attack and death of the U.S. Ambassador and three others Americans on September 11. It seems like Obama put a peg on Truman’s motto where he can hang a name tag for the appropriate sacrificial goat. Hillary fell on her sword for Obama. Having purchased her soul (and silence) in the Chicago tradition (keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer). Obama stepped in to collect in an effort to exonerate himself. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html

In the meantime, the individual who made the disputed film, which was a non-issue until Obama held it up for the world to see, sits in jail, not for the movie, but for an unrelated parole violation which would otherwise merit an admonition and possibly a fine. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/anti-islam-filmmaker-nakoula-basseley-nakoula-jail-not-innocence-muslims

The lesson is clear: Don’t buy a bridge from the White House or from HIllary Clinton!

First published at Illinois Review on Wednesday, October 17.