The depths of the scandalous Benghazi episode are becoming clear

The following timeline of events is what we know about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya:

• April 5, 2011: Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.

• February: The U.S. embassy requests and is granted a four-month extension, until August, of a Tripoli-based “site security team” composed of 16 special forces soldiers who provide security, medical and communications support to the embassy.

• March: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, and later says he received no response. He repeats his request in July and again gets no response.

• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.

• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans,” and another a month later highlights Ambassador Stevens’ daily jogs in Tripoli in an apparent threat. The Red Cross closed the office.

• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through,” and four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade. The British close the consulate soon thereafter.

• July: The anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” is posted on You Tube.

• Aug. 14: The US security team leaves Libya, despite Ambassador Steven’s desire that they remain, according to team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood.

• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”

•  Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

The next night, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, including two who disobeyed orders and came to help defend the consulate, are murdered in an attack that was unquestionably not the result of an obscure anti-Islam video.

Even dedicated Obama apologists cannot ignore the evident rising danger leading up to Sept. 11 that included violence serious enough to close the Red Cross office and the British consulate, and the direct violent attacks on the US consulate, and yet the needed and requested security enhancements were not provided.

It gets worse. From The Hill: "High-level staffers removed vital pieces of information tying terrorist organizations to attacks. They knew early on that radical Islamic terrorists participated in the attack. The former Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya, Gregory Hicks, said in the [Congressional] hearing, 'none of us should ever again experience what we went through in Tripoli and Benghazi on 9/11/2012.' He went on to say he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at 2 a.m. the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack. Gregory Hicks also testified that Secretary Clinton's claiming the attack was incited by a YouTube video caused Libyan officials to hinder the FBI's arrival to the scene." For his forthrightness Mr. Hicks was demoted by the State Department.

Some question the veracity of the three witnesses who testified at the Oversight & Government Reform Committee. This is a predictable, if foolish, effort to discredit these witnesses. But these people are not bystanders; they are not people who are going to report on hearsay; they are not political operatives. In fact, Gregory Hicks is a registered Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. These people were directly involved in different capacities before, during and after the attack. They are totally credible, and deserve not only our respect and appreciation, but our attention to their message.

So what went wrong? There are three possibilities: massive bureaucratic incompetence; the administration was asleep at the wheel; or the administration put political considerations ahead of doing the right thing. Negative repercussions of an Islamist terrorist attack on a US facility on the iconic date of Sept. 11, right before a presidential election, drove the administration to concoct an implausible scenario to try to deflect attention from the reality that al-Qaeda had indeed not been vanquished, contrary to Barack Obama's boasting to the contrary.

In answer to Hillary Clinton's asinine question: "What difference ... does it make?" It makes a huge difference. Four people died as a result of your and/or the administration's mishandling of this event, Ms. Clinton, and the people you worked for deserve to know who screwed up, and why.

We hired Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and every other public servant to act in the best interest of the American people and the nation, and expect them to put their personal political considerations aside. That clearly did not happen in Benghazi. There is no greater disservice.

Trying to understand job numbers that appear to challenge reality

Commentary by James H. Shott

After three years of a lackluster economy, unacceptably high unemployment, serious policy gaffes and generally poor performance, President Barack Obama really needed some positive development. But he didn’t get anything positive at the first presidential debate with challenger Mitt Romney, which was, to be kind, uninspiring.

And then – magically, two days after the debate – the September jobs report came out and in one fell swoop wiped away that negative. From the jobs report we learned that the U-3 unemployment rate fell from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, a surprisingly large drop, given what we’ve seen over the last three years, big enough to get below the magic 8.0 threshold that dogs incumbent presidents.

But then the big surprise: There were 873,000 more people working in September than in August.

Really? Nearly a million people found work in one month?

That number is wildly out of line with months of job number reports. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “In 2012, employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011.” And suddenly, just when Mr. Obama needed it most, 873,000 people find work. What’s going on?

The BLS has two monthly surveys that measure employment levels and trends: the Current Population Survey – the household survey – and the Current Employment Statistics survey – the payroll or establishment survey – which the BLS describes thusly: “The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based estimates of employment and both have strengths and limitations.” The establishment survey has a larger sample size and smaller margin of error than the household survey. “However, the household survey has a more expansive scope than the establishment survey.”

Economists say that over a period of months the two different surveys will show similar results, however, the household survey is erratic, with wild monthly swings up and down, and it is not unusual for responses to the survey to be made by proxies, who may answer for the targeted respondent. Any single month’s results cannot be depended upon for an accurate picture of employment changes from the previous month, whereas the establishment rate moves more steadily up or down.

Illustrating that point is that the establishment/payroll survey showed total nonfarm payroll employment rose by only 114,000 in September, which is substantially lower than the monthly average of 146,000 for 2012, but more in line with average job growth than is the household figure.

“We believe part of the drop in the unemployment rate over the last two months is a statistical quirk (the household data show an increase in employment of 873,000 in September, which is completely implausible and likely a result of sampling volatility),” say economists John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros of RDQ Economics. “Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline,” they conclude.

Just how implausible is that 873,000 new jobs number that appeared in only a month? It is the highest one-month jump in 29 years.

Further, the BLS explains that jobs reflected in the household survey are different types of jobs than are tracked in the payroll survey. They include those in start-up businesses, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, agricultural workers, private household workers, and some are people who can’t find a regular job and have started working from home, perhaps selling items on E-Bay; jobs that are excluded by the establishment survey.

While the U-3 rate fell to 7.8 percent, it is still too high. The sky-high number reported in the household rate may reflect a turn in the oh-so-slow rate of job creation. But it may not. We’ll have to wait and see what happens next month.

Following this “October Surprise,” to maintain a healthy perspective, other statistics must be kept in mind: The economy is grinding forward, with GDP a mere 1.3 percent last quarter. Most knowledgeable observers say we need 200,000 to 250,000 new jobs each month to drive unemployment down at a suitable speed, not the 146,000 we’ve been averaging. And while the Labor Force Participation Rate ticked up to 63.6 percent from 63.5 percent, it is still near the 30-year low.

More relevant, the U-6 unemployment rate counts those who are underemployed and those who have given up looking for a job, and now sits at the seasonally adjusted rate of 14.7 percent.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September, because many workers saw their hours cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

“The household survey painted a picture of a sharply falling unemployment rate—down 1.2 points over the last 12 months,” say Ryding and DeQuadros. “Such a rapid decline in the unemployment rate would be consistent with 4 percent to 5 percent real economic growth historically. Of course, the economy is not growing 4-to-5 percent, not even half that.”

Despite this surprising bit of good news, the economy is still under-performing, and nothing has changed to warrant four more years of Obamanomics. It’s way too little, and far too late.

Cross-posted from Observations

Liberal U.S. media working to subvert Mitt Romney’s candidacy

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

The experiences of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney last week illustrate how the media fail to provide adequate, objective and balanced coverage of serious campaign issues.

Campaigning in Colorado last week, Mr. Romney gave an interview to a local TV reporter, no doubt wanting to talk about his ideas for combating the horrible economic conditions, the need for jobs, and other weighty problems that threaten the nation.

The reporter began by asking about Mr. Romney’s inability to connect with Colorado Republicans, and following his 24-second answer then moved to same-sex marriage. Mr. Romney gave what he said was the same answer to this question as he has given from the beginning. The reporter then asked follow-up questions on that same subject. After two minutes of questions and answers on same-sex marriage, the reporter then asked if illegal aliens should receive in-state tuition. And then after that she asked Mr. Romney about medical marijuana.

So, given the opportunity to interview the likely Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States, a local reporter spends three minutes of the four and one-half minute interview asking about social issues.

Mr. Romney had about all he could stand, so he protested, since medical marijuana, same-sex marriage and tuition for illegals are neither the most important issues facing the nation, nor something about which a President of the United States should be concerned, since they are state issues.

And, indeed, there are obviously more important issues needing attention, such as the $16 trillion national debt that runs to $50,000 for every one of the more than 300 million Americans. How about the highest corporate tax rate in the world that makes U.S. corporations less competitive in the world market? How about the 16 percent of American workers – about 13 million, all together – that can’t find a job at all, or are underemployed? What about a nuclear Iran, and the mess in Afghanistan? How about the fact that the Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate have shirked their obligation to pass a budget for three straight years?

None of that seemed important to the reporter, but she finally did get around to asking questions about energy.

While the Colorado reporter was focusing on less relevant topics, the intrepid investigators at The Washington Post were busy looking into Mr. Romney’s high school days, searching for archaic dirt. And, they found some.

Some of the former governor’s high school classmates from 1965 said that he had indulged in boyish behavior, and one incident allegedly involved forcibly cutting the long blonde hair of a boy a year younger than Mr. Romney, who the classmates said may have been gay. If true, this was clearly wrong and indefensible. But it was nearly 50 years ago in high school, and appears to be an isolated incident. Yet, The Post thought it was important enough for 5,000 words starting on page 1 above the fold. And since then these allegations have “evolved” into proof that Mitt Romney was a homophobic bully. He also is accused of pulling classmate Susie Jones’ hair in the third grade.

The Post’s crack investigators successfully found this 47 year-old story about Mr. Romney (13 times longer ago than the last budget passed by our Democrat-controlled Senate), but gave little attention to Barack Obama’s history with former members of the Weather Underground and his admitted “enthusiastic” drug use, and were unable to find any information about his mysterious college days, including his grades, his formal papers, his days at the Harvard Law Review, his friends, etc.

Some people’s past apparently deserves closer scrutiny than others. You can understand why The Post might regard Mr. Romney’s past as more important: he’s running for President.

It is relevant to note that the family of John Lauber, the victim of Mr. Romney’s alleged brutish haircut, is appalled that their relative would be used for political purposes. His older sister, Christine, was unaware that Mitt Romney, or anyone else, “bullied” her brother, who passed away from liver cancer in 2004, but she was clearly not pleased by the story. “Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” she said. “If he were still alive today, he would be furious.”

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda,” she said. “There will be no more comments from the family.”

The treatment of Mitt Romney in 2012 and the treatment of Barack Obama in 2008 couldn’t be more different. In the Romney story, an unproved allegation of bullying gets front page treatment from The Washington Post, but admitted drug use, et al, by Barack Obama goes virtually unreported.

By emphasizing peripheral issues like same-sex marriage, illegal alien tuition, medical marijuana, and high school behavior, the liberal media distracts attention from President Obama’s dismal record on the critical economic problems. And in the attempt to discredit Mr. Romney, The Washington Post story denigrates John Lauber’s memory and upsets his family, presumably because of its obligation to inform the public. Well, about some things, anyway.

Cross-posted from Observations

Raining on the Republican’s Parade

Raining on the Republican’s Parade
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

There is an article making the rounds on the Internet that explains why Obama will be
reelected regardless of who the Republican nominee is and regardless of the economic
situation the US may find itself in at election time in November.
 

The article had a very prestigious economist’s name attached to it as the author, but
that turned out to be false.
 

I received it a few days ago as a “forwarded” e-mail.  Needless to say, when its
contents struck a cord with me, I immediately began to investigate to see if I could learn
who, in fact, had written it.  All I was able to ascertain was that, indeed, the economist
credited with having written it, did not.
 

Now, here’s the problem.  I happen to agree with a good deal of the article’s premise… 

that Obama will be reelected.  I do not agree that he will win by a large margin, but I do

believe he will win, nevertheless.
  

Here’s some of the article.  Again I do not know who wrote it.  If I did, and could prove
it, I would certainly make the proper attribution.  So, consider the author unknown.
 

The article says the following:
 

“The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of
millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.

 But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barack Obama can be 

defeated in 2012.

 The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter.   Obama gets reelected.
 

Nine percent unemployment?   No problem.  Obama will win.
 

Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon?  He still wins.
 

The economy soars or goes into the gutter.  Obama wins.
 

War in the Middle East?  He wins a second term.

America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Just what he wants! 
 

The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world
markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's
extraordinary deficit spending? No matter.  Obama wins handily.
 

Many will say, “You are crazy.  Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when
overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining?”  Sure I do.

 And that's why I know Obama will win.  The American people are notoriously ignorant of
economics.  And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.

 Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American
people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the
media will use to explain why it isn't his fault.  After all, things were much worse than
understood when he took office.

 Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem.  Consider the following:

 1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly.  Period.  Doesn't matter what he does.  It's a
race thing.  He's one of us.

That’s why the media destroyed Herman Cain so handily. Too big a threat.
 

2)  College educated women will vote for Obama.  Though they will be offended by this,
they swoon at his oratory.   It's really not more complex than that.
 

3)  Liberals will vote for Obama.  He is their great hope.
 

4)  Democrats will vote for Obama.  He is the leader of their party and his coat tails
will carry them to victory nationwide.
 

5)  Hispanics will vote for Obama.  He is the path to citizenship for those who are here
illegally and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the
Democratic Party.
 

6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power
in business, state and local politics.
 

7) Big Business will support Obama.  They already have.  He has almost $1 billion dollars
in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is
gaining more every day.  Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access 

to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.
 

8) The media love him.  They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him.
After all, to not love him would be racist.
 

9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him.  Oddly, the
overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote
Republican.  American Indians will support him.  Homosexuals tend to vote Democratic.  

And lastly…
 

10) approximately half of independents will vote for Obama.  And he doesn't need anywhere
near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned.  The President
will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.”…Author Unknown
 

Frightening?  ABSOLUTELY!
 

See – I am of the opinion that America cannot survive another four years of Obama.
 

I have no operational crystal ball and I am unable to peer into the future and give you a
report.  But if I were to make a suggestion at this moment, it would be this:  Americans
should pray intently and unceasingly while working our behinds off to prevent the
prediction in the unknown author’s prognostication from becoming a reality.

 J. D. Longstreet

Southern Democrats Worried That Obama Will Be Reelected

Southern Democrats Worried That Obama Will Be Reelected

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

In the Southern States of the US, there are still a vast number of conservative democrats.  I know.  I was raised with them, went to school and church with them, dated with them (as a teenager) – in other words—I lived with them.  And I still do.

My US Congressman is a conservative democrat … a “blue dog” democrat.

I make this point because -- knowing I am a conservative republican – they know I am greatly interested in seeing that Obama does get a second term, and they are so embarrassed by the man, and so angry with him, that they, too, want him out of the Oval Office --  and they want me to know they are going to do all they can to see that he does not get his coveted second term as President of the United States.

See, in the South many voters inherited their membership in the Democratic Party.  No.  I am NOT kidding.  They are democrats because their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were democrats.  Until the Nixon Administration, it was southern tradition to be a democrat.

As far back as pre-Civil War, the democrats controlled everything in the southern states.  Yeah, these were the folks in charge when slavery was in full force in the south.  Of course, they’d rather you did not know that, just as they would rather you not know that the Ku Klux Klan was a sort of enforcement arm of the southern   Democratic Party.

The South was a fiefdom of the Democratic Party until Nixon changed all that with his southern strategy.  It was only then that southerners realized that being a Republican did not mean you were consigned to Hell upon your death. 

See, Republicans were placed into southern governments by the occupying forces of the United States of America during Reconstruction immediately following the Civil War.  Many republican officials were former slaves who, in many instances could not read and write.  It happened in my home state of South Carolina.  In Wilmington, NC it finally boiled over and riots (known as the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898, also known as the Wilmington Massacre ... or the Wilmington Race Riot of 1898) ensued in which a number of republicans were killed and others run out of town. This event is the only instance of a municipal government being overthrown in US history.  In the Wilmington Insurrection, Democratic white supremacists illegally seized power from an elected government, running officials out of the city, and killing many blacks in widespread attacks.  (SOURCE) 

The whole Reconstruction mess left an enduring bad taste in the mouths of southerners for well over a hundred years.  We have very long memories.

As a result, even though many southern voters actually believed in the platform of the Republican Party, they felt they must honor their families by registering and voting as democrats.  A rather large portion of the southern population still believes that.  But they are no longer in the majority.

However, a huge portion of southerners, beginning in the 1960’s, began to realize they had much more in common with conservative republicans than with the democrats.  LBJ was a huge boost to the Republican Party in the South.  Jimmy Carter came along and embarrassed all of us -- both southern democrats and republicans alike. Mr. Carter made the GOP much more appealing to southern democrats than before.

Then, of course, came Bill Clinton and southerners were aghast at his sexual hijinks. Once again Southern conservative democrats were embarrassed and infuriated at the same time.  Again, the Republican Party in the south was the recipient of a host of democrats who changed their party affiliation saying enough was enough.

Now, southern conservative democrats have been hit with a socialist President sailing under the colors of the Democratic Party. 

Southern conservative democrats are, many for the first time, noticing that the party of their parents and grandparents has, itself, been slowly adopting much of the socialist philosophy and even a bit from the communists, as well.  Obama has been a rude awakening for them.

Now, southern conservative democrats are just as worried as southern conservative republicans that Obama will be reelected.  The very thought is abhorrent to them.

Many of them have expressed to me their disappointment at the stable of Republican candidates for President.   When they do, which is often, I commiserate with them and tell them I am just as disappointed as they are. In truth, I am far more disappointed in my own party than they. 

At a time in US history, when the table is set for a Republican take-over of the US government, we have to choose between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich?

I get the feeling that the GOP believes Americans are so fed-up with Obama that they are willing to vote for anybody but Obama.  I, on the other hand, am not so sure.  In fact, I think the GOP is making a terrible mistake and, as a result, will make possible a second term for Mr. Obama.

I think Americans will look at Romney and say why vote for an imitation when they can vote for the real thing … Obama.  I think the same American voters will look at Newt, and Newt’s baggage, and decide Newt represents too large a risk to chance placing him in the White House.   Either scenario will hand the Democrats and Obama a second term and, I am afraid, hand over control of the US House of Representatives to the democrats – and -- solidify the democrat’s control of the US Senate.

Many southern conservative democrats would vote for a conservative republican candidate they respected.  Problem is, there’s not one running!  And to be truthful, many southern conservative republicans feel the very same way.

I am very concerned that, come November of 2012, once again, the GOP will have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

J. D. Longstreet

What About Gingrich?

What About Gingrich?

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

The upper echelons of the Republican Party are in a state of high angst.  Their phone lines and e-mails are flashing back and forth with amazing speed and in astounding volumes.  Many are showing signs of what we southern folks used to call “the vapors” as they place the back of their open hand to their foreheads and slouch softly to the floor in a state of quiet apoplexy. 

So, what’s causing all this?  The former Congressman from Georgia, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, one Newton Gingrich… or just plain … Newt.

Cries of “woe is me” echo from the walls of the GOP’s ivory towers.  Why, this is unbelievable.  Worse, this is unacceptable. It simply cannot be happening … and yet … it IS happening.

The anointed one, Mitt Romney, has, at least for the moment, fallen to the outcast Gingrich.  It is as if Sir Lancelot had been bested in a joust with a kitchen knave.  It is unheard of.  It cannot be.  But … it is.

Newt has more baggage than the carousel at the airport.  Romney is, well, perfect. And that, dear reader, is a part of the problem conservatives have with Romney.  He is a little TOO perfect.

If you never DO anything, you never make mistakes.  The more you do, the more mistakes you make.  Newt has made a heck of a lot of mistakes.

I have survived 14 US Presidential administrations.  I have seen the best of them and I have seen the worst US Presidents in modern history.  The best was Ronald Reagan and the worst was Jimmy carter … until Obama.  Now Obama holds the title as the worst President in US history.

I am, shall we say, an “older” American.  I learned long ago the old saw: “all that glitters is not gold” is absolutely true.  I have seen politicians come and go.  I have seen some rise to heights never expected of them and I have watched just as many promising young lawmakers crash and burn.

With the country in the mess that it is in, there is something comforting in a candidate with all the warts, hairs, scars, and yes, battle wounds, as well, making himself available to help guide the country out of this mess.

We “old timers” already know Newt’s foibles.  We know he is mercurial, egotistical, haughty, and brilliant.  We already know of his matrimonial problems.  We know he is brainy, zany, and at times -- just plain dumb.  He can be courageous or reckless depending upon your viewpoint.  Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, once said of Newt:  “ … he has tons of guts.”

Newt is a contradiction.  He can at once be a genius and a dunce.  Every kid who has ever been to college knows a person like Newt.  Heck, he was our classmate.  He’s in our civic club. He goes to our church. He’s the guy in the front office where we work.  His name is: Tom, Dick, Harry, John, Jack, Don, and … Newt.

How many Mitt Romneys go to your church, your civic club, or work in your office?   See what I mean?  Am I making my point here? 

My generation knows Newt Gingrich about as well as it is possible to actually know a national politician.  We know what he is capable of… the good and the bad. And we are nothing if not practical.

We need a man who can do the dirty work that is needed to get America back on track.  And believe me, it will be dirty work. 

To get our nation set aright, a lot of Americans are going to have to be “P.O.ed.”  It is going to take a President willing to put his head down and plow ahead, against the current, until the job is done.  He will,  most likely,  be a one term President.  So many Americans will be so angered that it will probably be at least a generation before his greatness will be officially recognized.

Allow me this analogy:  A General needs a soldier for a nearly impossible mission.  His troops are standing before him in full brace -- at attention.  He can’t help but notice the soldier with the perfectly pressed uniform, the perfectly polished buttons, the regulation haircut, and those sparkling spit shined boots.

Then his attention is drawn to the middle-aged soldier with the broken nose, the scars on his face, the calloused hands, the boots that are polished just enough and a uniform that is slightly rumpled but with a string of hash marks denoting years of devotion and experience in the service of his country.

Care to guess which soldier the General will choose? 

There’s no big secret as to why Americans, especially older Americans, are taking a hard look at Newt. They don’t know, I mean REALLY know, Romney.  They feel they know Newt, well, enough, anyway, to give him a shot at the Oval Office and one of the most difficult problems every given to a human being.

Nah.  There’s no secret here.

J. D. Longstreet   

Beware Of Those Angry Americans

Democrats have nothing to offer but FEAR

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Over the past two and a half years there has been a blanket of fear suffocating America.  The Congress has taken America to the brink time after time after time.  It was, and remains, a strategy of the democrats to get their polices passed into law.  It has worked, up to now, because the nation’s mainstream media, the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, has aided and abetted their heroes on the left by spewing that fear from their printing presses and their news anchor desks. 

So far, only one segment of America has actually been frozen by their torrent of fear -- America’s business community.  The American populace is, by and large, not afraid.  They are mad as hell!

America’s pollsters tell us that Americans are every bit as mad as they were before the elections in November of 2010 and we should look for massive turn-overs in the House, the Senate, and quite possibly the Oval Office, as well, in the election of 2011.

The Democratic Party is still relying on its reservoir of minorities, leftist wing-nuts, labor unions, uber liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists, and communists to push their candidates across the finish line to victory in 2012.  They can count on the votes of every leftist fringe group under the sun to march to the polls in lock step and cast a vote for the Democratic Party’s socialist agenda.

Their campaign of fear, aimed at senior Americans and that huge minority group that is a ward of the government and cannot, or will not, feed themselves without the government check each month, and yes, the Latino voters who still believe that illegal aliens will get a free ride to citizenship even though those illegals are already law-breakers, will certainly payoff at the polls.

Why?

Ignorance, avarice, sloth, greed – take your pick, or add a few reasons to the list.

The GOP, especially conservative republicans, have a HUGE mountain to climb next year to claim victory at the polls.

So what to do?  How do you fight fear and ignorance?  You fight it with truth.  Expose the democrats for what they are.  Use their own words and deeds against them.  Pull back the drapes, open the blinds, and shine a little sunshine into the room and watch the roaches scurry for cover.

Ask the question:  “Are you better off today than you were in 2008?”  Millions upon millions of Obama’s words are out there ready to be used as swords of truth cutting to the marrow.  Our President loves the sound of his own voice.  Get between him and a microphone, or camera, and you are likely to be trampled!   Compare the Democratic Party’s promises against what they actually delivered.  Facts are, indeed, stubborn things. 

It is important to remember this:  Truth has no agenda.  Republicans should stick to the truth.  Only produce facts that can be proven. 

As we said earlier, Americans are angry.  They see through the crisis and fear agenda of the Democratic Party and they are sick to death of it.  They want o have a leader they can have confidence in.  A leader who exudes calm certitude based on years of experience as a Chief Executive Officer of a state, a governor for instance.  They are looking for someone with a proven record of performance and someone who will produce his, or her, birth certificate up front.

Americans have been lied to, used, kept in doubt and anxiety by the current administration, until they are more than ready to throw of the yoke of oppressive uncertainty. 

I am old enough to remember, very well, the Eisenhower Administration.  The early 50’s was another time when Americans were tired.  The Great Depression, FDR, and world events such as World War Two, had jerked them around.  Then came the Truman Administration and the Korean War, (which the democrats referred to as a  “UN Police Action.”)  They were tired and not a little angry.

Ike came along and promised the American people that if elected he would “bring the boys home” from Korea.  He was, he did, and then -- he played golf for the remainder of his first term and continued his tour of the links during his second term. 

Ike could, and often did, wax white-hot with anger … in private.  But in public he was as calm as a duck on water.  Rarely ever did one see even a flicker of anger.  He was convinced the American people needed some tranquility, some quiet certitude, and he gave it to us.  The decade of the 1950’s was one of the most prosperous times in America’s history.

Americans long for that kind of leadership again.  We may never find it.  The world has changed.  People have changed.  Events move far too quickly for human comprehension these days.  With 24-hour news, computers, the Internet, and every kind of hand held appliance dripping information from around the world, there is no longer day and night.  Every thing is crowding in upon us.  PTSD is the order of the day.  We don’t have time to sort things out, time to reflect, time to grieve, time to just be quiet and shut the world out and simply allow our minds to slip into neutral and just, well, rest. 

Honestly, I think the world is on the brink of a nervous breakdown!  The anger, the unrest, the riots, the wars all over the globe, the starvation caused by both wars and famine and by those who see withholding food as power over the people – all of it just screams lunacy!

Then, too, there is the fear of a coming religious war between Islam and every other religion on the planet.  We all know it is bound to happen, and yet, we try not to think about it, speak about it, or write about it. It IS coming and it will be a war with no quarter.  Some say it has already begun.

It is simply too much.  And yes, Americans are angry, but it is not just Americans.  The world is on a slow boil.

However, Americans, ever optimistic, will have a chance to bring some sanity back to their land next year in the elections of 2011. Believe me when I predict that -- not a single politician holding office today in our nation’s capitol is safe from being sent packing.

Americans are beginning to focus their anger on what they perceive as the root cause – our very own government -- and THAT we CAN change.

J. D. Longstreet    

Leaders Are Like Eagles. They Don’t flock.

Leaders Are Like Eagles.  They Don’t Flock.

You Find Them One At A Time

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

************************

I’ve been thinking about leadership the past few weeks.  Normally, I don’t spend a great deal of time sitting around pondering leadership.  However, when a Presidential election looms, I do.

Choosing a leader is a dangerous thing.  America should have learned this lesson from the results of the election of 2008.   We are paying dearly for our monstrously bad choice in a national leader.

When I look at our nation’s leader today, I am reminded of something someone said a while ago.  I don’t remember who said it, nor do I remember the exact words the original author used.  But if I may be allowed to paraphrase -- it goes something like this:  “ In times of dire danger or distress, there almost always appears one who has all the answers and knows exactly what to do, what course of action to choose.  Often, however, that person is insane.”

America is approaching another moment of decision.  It behooves us all to search diligently for someone to lead America back to her proper position as world leader.   We Americans chaff at following.  We are totally unfit for following.  We are a nation of leaders.  It is our birthright.  It sparkles in our DNA. 

America has no king -- because we refuse to follow a king.  We do not recognize the “Divine Right of Kings.” 

It is a near impossible mission for a nation, such as ours, to choose one from among us to bear our nation’s colours, to represent us before the world.  Often we get it wrong. Occasionally, we get it right.  At our last time of choosing – we got it wrong.

In roughly eighteen months we will have a chance to correct that national mistake and save our country.

There are always devastating consequences resulting from bad choices.  The deadly consequence America faces is the loss of its freedom, of its liberty, of it’s very “self” as a nation.    Yet, there is reason enough to believe that we, as a nation, are set to repeat that mistake -- and doom our country.

Someone once said:  "A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the quality of his actions and the integrity of his intent. In the end, leaders are much like eagles...they don't flock, you find them one at a time."(Anonymous)  (I have this “pearl of wisdom” written inside the flyleaf of my Bible.  It has been there for at least twenty years.  It is a frequent reminder of how few leaders there actually are.)

I thought of this expression as I observed the “flock” of Republican Presidential candidates grace the debate stage in South Carolina a short time ago.  Maybe it’s my nature, but I automatically question the motives of ANYONE who actually SEEKS a leadership role, especially if that role is a position of power over me.

Allow me to offer an example of what I see as a REAL leader.

Remember Moses?  God chose Moses to lead his people, Israel, out of bondage in Egypt.  He announced his decision to Moses, as the Bible tells us, through the “Burning Bush.”  If I may be allowed to paraphrase, it went something like this: 

God to Moses:  “Moses, I want you to go down to Egypt and tell Pharaoh to let my people go. Then I want you to lead them out of that ace and take them to a land I will show you.” 

Moses to God:  “Why me, God?  I’m not the guy, you want!  Nooo!  I’m no public speaker.  I stutter and stammer and, well, I’m not the one you want for this mission.  Hey, why not send my brother Aaron.  He’s the guy you REALLY want.  Not me, Lord.

But as is His wont, God prevailed, Moses, went, Pharaoh caved, and Israel walked away a free people after four hundred years of slavery.  

Moses was a reluctant leader.  He was, nevertheless, one of the greatest leaders of men ever to live.

Lao Tzu, traditionally considered the founder of Taoism, once said the following:  "A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worse when they despise him.... But of a good leader who talks little when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, "We did it ourselves."   (Does this remind you of a current national leader?)

Here in America, we have a year and a half to decide, each for himself, or herself, whom our next President should be.  (My personal decision is already made, but he is reluctant to lead America.  THAT fact (that he is reluctant) plus his many attributes that just scream L E A D E R! assures me that my choice is practical and sound.

The fate of America, indeed, the fate of the world, is at stake.  America is desperately needed, once again, in the role of global leader.   We have tried all the rest.  Isn’t it time we turned to a person reluctant to seek the reins of power?  Yes, I think it is.

This not the time for Americans to follow an “uncertain trumpet.”  We need a strong, capable, visionary, with proven leadership skills, willing to accept the call of his people to get out in front and carry our banner, our ensign, into whatever may befall us as a nation. 

Unlike today, Americans WILL rally to a leader -- not because HE thinks he deserves it, but because WE think he deserves it.

J. D. Longstreet