Obama Radio Address – Look away from the Protest Images! Don’t be Dismayed – U.S. Flag burning in 21 Nations - Obama – Damage Control.

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Grows - Burning of U.S. Flag - Image: theerant.yuka.com AFP

From: AisiaOne (Singapore) via the AFP, In President Obama’s weekly address to the nation:

US President Barack Obama urged Americans Saturday not to be disheartened by images of anti-American violence in the Islamic world, expressing confidence that the ideals of freedom America stands for will ultimately prevail.
"I know the images on our televisions are disturbing," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. "But let us never forget that for every angry mob, there are millions who yearn for the freedom, and dignity, and hope that our flag represents."

Of course, with cable TV News channels available in almost every household in the U.S. that may be a bit of a stretch, including the fact that it is disheartening with not one, but 21 nations are up in arms, attacking not only U.S. interests (embassies), but also German Embassies (Reuters). One has to ask what the Germans did; other than not adhere to the principles of Radical Islam and the desire of the proponents of said “religion” wishing to take over the world. Apparently, it is not only the U.S. that is maligned but the West itself (or any nation not under Islamic rule). The fact that the White House and the U.S. Press continues the narrative of blaming a simple (and badly produced) video that insults “Mohammed” is beyond comprehension of anyone with a pulse. Understanding that radicals spring from any religion and that they do not represent the “norm” (in most cases), historically, there was no film available when the radical Ayatollah, in response to President Carters offer of Peace, promptly stormed the U.S. Embassy, killed diplomats, kidnapped the balance and held them hostage until the day Reagan was inaugurated in January of 1981. Said hostages were immediately released as they eyed a strong leader rather than a paper tiger.

To suggest that reason will prevail and that the U.S. population should not be concerned about violence targeting the U.S. in 21 countries around the world, spreading from the Middle East to Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and Europe., (Whiz-bang) is a bit of a stretch as the Administration/Campaign is finding damage control difficult.

The fact that the short narrative insulting Mohammed was produced by a Coptic Christian (Washington Post)should also be considered more relevant than the film itself – because the Coptic Christians in Egypt have enjoyed terrorism, murder and more since the Obama administration backed Muslim Brotherhood government took over. (See Egypts-Coptic-Christians Mark Christmas in Fear” . Not a peep out of the White House or U.S. news that Christians are being murdered in nations that adhere to the Religion of Peace.

The Presidents suggestion that images of attacks against the U.S. be ignored by the U.S. population, especially since the WH narrative continues to employ the “film” excuse is not going to fly. In the politically correct world of the elites, yes, it may, but in the real world of every day American’s many of whom are Christian of one sect or another – the fact that riots, and flag burning don’t take place every time the Pope or a Minister or church leader or “Holy Image” is lampooned, is not lost on, for lack of a better word, sane population. There are comparisons to be made between eh civilized Western World and the Insanity of the nations to which the President wishes to engage in a dialogue of peace!

It’s a lovely thought, however, as much as one would love to see world peace, President Obama is not Miss America – and should, by virtue of education, know better. Ideologically speaking, it is a wonderful idea that is grounded in the very Christian concept that when one treats others as they themselves want to be treated, all will be well. Normally the case, unless of course, the group one is treating with respect, harbors a centuries old desire to convert or kill, and then control the property upon which one resides.

One suggestion that might have improved the situation immediately: Pull foreign aid from nations who aren’t getting the message, (obviously not England, or other European Nations, nor Israel, where these “protestors” (marauding hordes is more appropriate), are happily burning the U.S. flag and replacing said flag with the Flag of Islam.

Or perhaps ones might remove the rose colored glasses, actually read the intelligence briefs, and go “Forward” from said White House with more confidence (not apparent in the last week), and a bit more “chutzpah” (Perhaps he should actually meet more frequently with Benjamin Netanyahu). Although yes, the military (ships and marines) have been deployed to the area, it has been done without a confident threat to those who would harm American’s abroad, or for that matter, one who does not read intelligent briefs due to a scheduling conflict with a reelection campaign, may not understand that the rash of hysteria across U.S. Campuses yesterday due to bomb scares might have something to do with those “images” of the U.S. Flag being burned by radical Islamist in 21 countries.

The statement to the American Public made by an Administration in Damage Control was inherently weak and does nothing to instill confidence, either at home or aboard.

Benjamin Netanyahu Attacked U.S. Press for Trying to Influence U.S. Elections – Boxer (D-CA) Joins In – Israel’s Right to Defend Itself of No Concern

Netanyahu Shown the Back Door - image: thetruthseeker.co.uk


Politics First with Obama Administration/Campaign

Benjamin Netanyahu has no easy task trying to keep his nation as safe as possible from a rabid Iran and Iranian backed Hezbollah, let alone trying to get an audience with the U.S. President, or any sign of moral support from the U.S. administration as tensions in the Mideast are at the breaking point. To add insult to injury, Democrat Senator, Barbara Boxer, took pen to paper and wrote Netanyahu a scathing letter: From the Jerusalem Post:

In an unusual public display of criticism from an influential member of the US Senate, California Democrat Barbara Boxer wrote a letter to Netanyahu Wednesday to express “my deep disappointment over your remarks that call into question our country’s support for Israel.” She went on to describe them as “utterly contrary to the extraordinary United States- Israel alliance.”

Boxer’s letter, made public, calls on Netanyahu to “step back and clarify your remarks so that the world sees that there is no daylight between the United States and Israel.”

Senator Boxer apparently has missed what the public has not – there has been a deepening rift between the U.S. and Israel for the past four years – the first sign of trouble between the two nations began with the Presidents trip to the Middle East in 2009, with the primary intent of strengthening relationships with the “Muslim” world, while propping and legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood, he found no time to sprint over to Israel for a meet and greet. (CNN) Of course, he had no visited Israel since he has stepped foot in the Oval Office. It matters not that Israel is the only other Democracy in the world that is not fledgling or falling apart at the seams. It matters not that the Iranian Ayatollahs and their puppet president, continually call for the destruction of Israel. It matters not that as the U.S. embassies around the world burn, the President could find no time to meet with the PM of Israel; rather he had other scheduled engagements of more import – an appearance on David Letterman’s late night nut fest. Apparently, what matters to Boxer and to the Administration is that everything appears normalized, even though it is not, so that they maintain a voter bloc – those in the U.S. who are Jewish and or see our ally Israel as – an ally and friend.

What is most ridiculous is that a Prime Minister, of a nation who is an ally of the U.S., on a trip to the U.N. in the U.S., on a mission to prevent war and save his nation, is further harangued for his efforts by the U.S. Media who, dedicated as they are to the President, suggest that the motive of Netanyahu was not one of Israel’s preservation, but to interfere in American Politics!

More from the Post

Joe Klein of Time called Netanyahu’s recent behavior “outrageous,” as well as “an unprecedented attempt by a putative American ally to influence a US presidential campaign.”

Similarly, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, wrote that “Netanyahu seems determined, more than ever, to alienate the president of the United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney’s campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012 election.”
Though Remnick and Klein were addressing Netanyahu’s actions on Iran, the charge that Netanyahu was interfering in the presidential race intensified when Israeli officials on Tuesday afternoon leaked that a request to meet with Obama during the prime minister’s visit to the US at the end of the month had been turned down.

Those that are so blind they cannot see the forest through the trees, would have said the same regardless of who the GOP challenger was, or for that matter, anyone seen as challenging the President would come under fire – even a man who is seeking help for his nation, which is surrounded by his enemies!

So what if Romney is correct and the Obama Administration is always the last out of the gate when it comes to making a decision. Perhaps if the President had the time to read or react to intelligence briefings only days before U.S. embassies came under attack, (Independent:UK) or those intelligence briefs available weeks prior to the attacks and unrest in the Middles East (Jpost.com) noting that something was afoot - something may have been done!

The Canadian’s must have something on Iran, enough to pull their people out of Iran and kick the Iranian emissaries out of Canada (CBC – Canadian Broadcast). Therefore, if the Canadians, our northern neighbors, have this type of intelligence and are worried about Iran, how much more concerned should Netanyahu be for his nation, which borders Iran!!

How despicably partisan are those who would attack a man who is trying to preserve his nation, a nation which has been our ally, at times our only ally, over the years, and blame him for attempting to “interfere in a political contest” by stating the truth!! One would have to live under a rock right now, to not know that the President has consistently dismissed Israel, and the Delhi Lama for that matter (a man of Peace). The President’s inability to choose correctly between a campaign appearance and an intelligence briefing is to blame for his own blaringly apparent ineptitude and subsequent disgust of the American electorate (let alone the economy) who remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis under Jimmy Carter! Netanyahu could have been on the moon and Romney would have made a statement that made sense: one supports their friends, and their enemies, not so much. (Personal translation), and somehow the press would have put two and two together to come up with three (they no longer teach math to par in the U.S.) a glaringly obvious problem.

In this opinion, Netanyahu and the Israeli people have every right to protect themselves. They also deserve the respect of the U.S. administration, no matter how ridiculously handicapped in areas of foreign policy, the Administration, one would think, would at least be polite to the nation that is consistently threatened with annihilation. As the Press continues its narrative that the whole world is exploding over a you-tube movie, parodying Mohammed, which a badly made film by one person who resides in the U.S. is enough to compel the native populations of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tunisia, to attack American Embassies, protest in the street, murder American Citizens. These same elite belie the point that the these same nations, under the name of the same “religion” have no greater desire than to take out the “Little Satan” (Israel) and the Big Satan (the U.S.) so that they may do what their religion demands: kill the infidel, convent the unbeliever to Islam and amass territory in the name of Islam. The badly made and idiotic movie is not the impetuous for this continuous Dark Ages assault, it is only that the radical Muslims are adhering to their “party line” If one had a history book and were able to read, one would find that this has been the stated goal since the religion was formed as a way to unite the Arab Tribes by a General who saw religion as a unifying force, the use of which, would facilitate a larger territory and eventual world conquest.

Jimmy Carter found that to be true (although deniable) when his aid to the radical Ayatollah in overthrowing a stable Persian King in Iran, resulted, not in peace, but in a conflict that was to last until Israel and the U.S. were destroyed. To watch these events unfolding a second time in a lifetime is mind-boggling, but not as mind-boggling as the Administrations obvious dismissal of one nation that is our ally(NYTimes), especially in their time of need.

To reiterate: (The Globe and Mail – November 8, 2011:

U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were caught on an open microphone making comments in a private conversation about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "I can't bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Mr. Sarkozy told Mr. Obama, who replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day." They were both unaware that microphones in the meeting room were on. It would not be the first time politicians were unaware of the open microphone.

The Delai Lama shown the Back Door - image polifrogblog

CNN updated 03 29 2012 – Title: Tiebetans’Cries for Help: refers to 2010 incident:

The Dalai Lama, who has achieved rock star status in much of the world, has done much to rally the West to his cause. But his effort only goes so far. Given China's increasing economic clout, even President Obama tried to avoid upsetting the Chinese government on the Tibet issue. When the Dalai Lama visited the president in 2010, he had to leave the White House through a back door -- in front of garbage bags -- to lower the profile of the visit.

Flashback June 2009

The Seattle Times Title: Some militants respond positively to Obama speech”

In his speech in Cairo Thursday, Obama listed confronting "violent extremism" as the top priority in addressing tensions between the U.S. and Muslims. He urged the Islamic world to reject radical ideologies and promised to work aggressively to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also said the U.S. does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement in the West Bank and endorsed a Palestinian state.
There are already some indications his words are having the desired effect of undercutting extremists. A militant leader in Egypt called on the Taliban to respond positively to Obama's gestures, and Hamas militants in Gaza say they are ready "to build on this speech."

Finally:

Obama Makes Time for Letterman but not for Israeli PM Netanyahu” - The Examiner

Perhaps Barbara Boxer cannot recall events that happened 30 or 40 years ago, but surely has the capacity to recall what has taken place in the past four years. Shame on her and shame on the pandering, so called journalist who see political opportunism where there is none, while being political opportunist for the Administration.

U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Yemen Under Siege – Romney and Reality – Administration Fumbled on Middle East Foreign Policy

Egypt Ablaze Against the U.S. - image: Salon.com

CNN International is reporting on a wave of violence against U.S. interests that is spreading across the Middle East – the U.S. Embassies in Yemen and Egypt are now under attack by “protestors”. The first wave came earlier this week on the anniversary of September 11, 2001, when coordinated Al Queda attacks against U.S. Embassies resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christoper Stevens, in Libya (ABC News) who was the first U.S. Ambassador to be killed since the Carter Administration in 1979 (*ABC News link to Arlington Cemetery online).

Mitt Romney released a statement on the 12th, condemning the attacks and critiquing the U.S. Foreign policy which did little to alleviate the growing problem in the Middle East - The U.S. Press immediately coordinated an attack on Mitt Romney! Must Read: Erick Erickson’s The American Media Beclowned themselves Yesterday: which presents a timeline of events that is factual, as well as disconcerting to those who understand the reason why the U.S. Media cannot garner more than 17 to 24% trust by Independent and Republicans voters, or, for that matter 34 – 37% of those who identify themselves as Democrats (Gallup – Trust in Institutions polling 2012.

The full text of Mitt Romney’s Remark’s are below – the audio of reporters at the Romney Press Conference(CBS News reporter is Jan Crawford and she was discussing this with the NPR reporter Ari Shapiro) coordinating questions is available here at the Right Scoop (NPR – Publicly Funded)

Via: Mitt Romney.com:

“Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world. This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it's disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom, and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.
“Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And, of course, with these words, I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones, who have left behind, as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation, and I know that the people across America are grateful for their service and we mourn their sacrifice.
“America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
“I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It's never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn't ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.
“The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.
“We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter.”

Romney is correct in his assessment of the Administration, in his assertion and view of the U.S. Role abroad, and in the delivery of his statement in the first place. As the GOP Candidate for the U.S. Presidency, one would expect a statement – what one might not anticipate is that the delivery of the statement would be, by conservative standards, Reaganesque. Reaganesque in the tone, as well as the delivery – Romney appeared Presidential in the face of what has become a full-blown assault on the U.S.

Furthermore, the disgusting rebuff of Israel by the Commander in Chief of the U.S., (i.e. the President) refusing to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu over the imminent danger and threat of war between Iran and Israel is another foreign policy failure added to the growing list of Carteresque irresponsible boondoggles abroad based on inexperience and ineptitude.

The gist: Benjamin Netanyahu, requested a meeting with President Obama, Obama replied he was engaged elsewhere (Haaretz)– this elsewhere was a David Letterman appearance(Examiner), and several fundraisers and campaign stops. Meanwhile, the Canadian’s who are not blinded by stupidity, have pulled their embassy and staff out of Iran and have kicked the Iranians out of Canada. (Disclose TV)The writing is on the wall and the lines have been drawn, and for the first time in over 40 years, America is again on the wrong side, with the result being death to American citizens abroad and continued upheaval in the region. Unless and until the election in November results in a change of the guard (polls aside conventional wisdom indicates a change in leadership is eminent), there will be continued and increasing anti-U.S. Sentiment in that region. Carter never understood why, after befriending the Ayatollah and embracing the Palestinians, why they turned on the U.S., and one would think that someone as well-educated and versed in politics as President Obama would have avoided making the same mistake. Apparently not.

It is this opinion that there is more violence on the way in the Middle East and that by abandoning the Israeli’s in favor of the Iranians’ spells disaster for the U.S. The Israeli’s will respond as necessary, as they have in the past, without the “blessing” of any U.S. administration, or for that matter, the hypocritical, taxpayer funded, body known as the U.N. The setting for this current wave of violence began in 2009 when President Obama naively embraced those who would harm us on his trip to Egypt. His dismissal of our allies in favor of the camping trail is inexcusable. The economy continues to crumble and the world is burning, it is no better or not worse than 1980, and that outcome, with polls tying all parties equal, resulted in a resounding national mandate against appeasement foreign policy, ineptitude and failure.

Other Links of interest.
Presidnet Obama Skipped Intel Briefings Week before Embassy Attacks (Breitbart – Big Peace)

(Update)
Netanyahu conversation with Obama on Iran was 'good' (Jerusalem Post referring to mid-night phone call between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which apparently fit into Obama’s schedule)

Or

Obama’s Netanyahu Snub Puts Fla. at ‘Substantial Risk’ for Democrats” (Newsmax) was the quick call to Israeli’s PM a political ploy?

It is not that this blogger has always been a big fan of Romney, or did not hold out for hope and change like many American’s in 2009 as the young and hopeful President Obama set on course against division and renewal that, unfortunately did not materialize. The problems arise, not based on one’s race, or one’s religion, which factor race was proven not to be an issue by virtue of the election of Barack Obama by a majority of White Caucasians, and religion should not play a factor (the Press has little on which to attack Mitt Romney, so let’s discuss Mormons!). What should play a factor is some sort of experience, either in governing, or in business, and more than one term, be it in the Governors Mansion, or in the Senate, or Congress, or the Boardroom. What is necessary is a longer resume, and what the American Electorate decided in 2008 was to ignore history (which is no longer taught in Public Schools), and elect the second coming of Jimmy Carter (this was not in evidence until later in 2009). The concepts of Strength through Peace, and tax cuts providing a “trickle down” effect are not owned by the Republican Party – from JFK to Ronald Regan, those concepts lifted up the U.S. Economy and gave us a stable world. They are proven tactics for both the economy and foreign policy – which Romney espouses and the President disavows, in favor of Carter Policies which destroyed the U.S. Economy and resulted in the takeover of Iran and the Persian People by a radical, hate-filled and extremist brand of Islamic Elite Theocrats. The distinction is clear, it is not in the least muddy – it is heartbreaking to watch the burning U.S. flag, some 40 years forward, burning, as the Middle East once gains, murders our emissaries and displays ignorance in the face of a coming U.S. election. It is unfathomable that the President would be on the campaign trail rather than in front of the American People the hour it became known that there was something afoot, and it is unfathomable that the President and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (a woman who is admired), would only issue statements on the situation after Mitt Romney announced his intent to do so.

Libya – U.S. Ambassador – Staffers- Killed in Embassy Takeover – Egypt Explodes– Movie the Excuse – Shades of 79'

Attacks on the American Embassy in Egypt - image CBS News

This morning fromReuters: The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on Tuesday in the Libyan city of Benghazi, a Libyan official said.
It was not clear if the ambassador was in his car or the Libyan consulate when the attack occurred.
"The Libyan ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.

A film produced by the U.S. State Department introducing the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, is shown below. The naiveté with which the U.S. approaches the region is evidenced in the short film – with Stevens pointing out how our nation allows freedom of (and he should have noted “from”) religion. That is something foreign to the Middle East, where theocracy is the main form of government in Iran, as well as newly formed governments in Egypt and Libya where the Muslim Brotherhood has a strong hand in the governments, or even our allies such as Saudi Arabia where the law is based on the Koran, and women’s rights are non-existent. (Stoning is the preferred method of dealing with immodest women and the LBGT community in the Middle East.)



There was also violence in Egypt, coverage of the day’s events by CBS News – catch the U.S. Response at the end of the report.




Apparently, the excuse for the eruption of violence, was the release of an anti-Muslim film by a group in California, the film had been released to little or no commercial success. The premise of the movie: a ridiculous and badly hatched movie that depicts Mohammad as some sort of nut – violent and erotic – in other words a parody. Fine if one is in the U.S. and free speech, no matter how poorly grafted and/or distasteful, is tolerated – but in Libya and Egypt that is enough “proof” of “anti-Muslim rhetoric” to attack the entire U.S., take over their embassies and kill Americans!



Perhaps, just perhaps, if every time someone of little or no import, a cartoonist, or even journalist, that joked or lampooned, the Pope, was met by millions of angry Catholics storming into the streets, burning the nations flag, and murdering staffer, the cartoonist, or whoever they pleased, this would make sense somehow – but – the only way this does make sense is that once a Theocracy has a foothold in a nation, and their population is undereducated or radical enough to believe a shoddy film produced in the U.S. is representative of all of the U.S., it allows those few at the top of the food chain to gain a firm foothold in the nation – while laying the blame on the “Great Satan” (i.e. the U.S.A.) for the Muslim worlds short-comings. The aforementioned provides the protagonist (General, Ayatollah, et al) an an instant riot, or takeover of an embassy where those staffers are sadly attempting to help these people.

Shades of the Ayatollah and his return to Iran! (See Jimmy Carter, his naive support for the Ayatollah’s return to Iran, and the subsequent U.S. embassy takeover, deaths and hostage situation in Iran in that period.)

Viewing, with a bit of sanity, any organized religion, one finds that the founders made decisions based on attracting a wide range of followers, that there were military, political and, let’s face it, colonization goals involved, with a startling few of those who were basically against such a sham. The fact that most of the Popes were more interested at one point in history in consolidating The Italian State, rather than in promoting Catholicism and its core values is a well known fact. Martin Luther rebelled over what can only be called the “purgatory tax” or a way to fund a war by making up a place called Purgatory, and then charging individuals a sum of cash to insure that they or their relatives did not end up there after death. That worked in the middle ages. Also, it is not a stretch that a general, bent on taking power and controlling a large section of the Middle East, whose plans encompassed the entire world at the time, would band tribes of Bedouins together, write a book, suddenly get “religion” – which was built on the backs of two of the prominent religions of the day – all in order to give the peoples a common thread to bind them together and consulate his power. He accomplished that task – His name was Mohammed. Therefore, today one has Catholics that pray for the souls of the dead trapped in an imaginary purgatory, and Muslims who want to kill infidels to gain entrance into Paradise, and in the meantime, convert the entire planet to the true religion by war and conquest.

(All of the above available in library books, history books, and college course in upper level theocracy and history disciplines – or they were at one time.)

What is mind-boggling is the total lack of coverage of this event by local affiliates on the 11 o’clock news hour last evening. The story broke yesterday afternoon, and when one has an embassy takeover and murder of staff on the anniversary of 9/11, then that is of some interest one would think, to some of the individuals watching?

Perhaps those in control of the breaking news segment passed in this area due to the fact that the very murder of an American in any nation for any reason, might be justified if a flag were involved – No joke, take the City of Amherst, MA for example, where U.S. flags may be flown on 9/11 every 5 days, so that the community won’t be upset by the controversial symbol of the flag!!! - (See Coverage here from local NBC Affiliate: WWLP Springfield. Of course, this is the University of Massachusetts, where one can become a certified SEIU Organizer – the only University that has an advance degree program in - Labor Studies Graduates go on to make hefty salaries, on the backs of union workers, while organizing protests in placed like Wisconsin – Therefore, not reporting on a major event involving a U.S. Embassy, and the death of the Ambassador at the hands of Muslim protestors, might not be considered, normal! Or perhaps, just perhaps, those networks would prefer to keep this one shoved under a rug somewhere.

Consider there are obvious comparison that would and should be made regarding the poor foreign policy choices coming from the Administration and the screamingly similar policy during the Carter Administration. Whereby any honest Historian will admit that the two have too many distinct parallels. To discover: one might read articles from 1977 to 1980 and find more than a few decisions that are comparable.

This act of violence, murder and mayhem in the name of Allah, will of course, go unanswered, as it was in 1980. Or it may be “strongly condemned” by the U.S. Administration. It must be seriously tiring for Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State to tow the party line in these instances. One can hazard to guess, as the number of 3 am calls have piled up over the years and that those individuals claiming to be fighting for Democracy while installing a Theocracy in the Middle East would not have dared to do so under a Clinton administration. It sends a message to the millions of baby boomers who got out the vote for Reagan in 1979, and are "very enthusiastic" regarding this years election.

Remember - September 11, 2001

ABCNews Poll – Race Remains Tight Between Romney and Obama among Likely, Registered Voters – those removed, Romne has Lead – Reading Between the Lines

Carter and Reagan after October Debate - All Tied in Polls - images newstimes.com

The polls are receiving a good deal of national attention this week, let alone the two men who are the focus of the pollsters. First there is the implications of coercion between the Obama Campaign and Department of Justice against Gallup Polling: See Washington Times Article: “Internal e-mails: Axelrod intimidated Gallup before DOJ lawsuit surfaced against polling company”. Gist: Gallup had an employee who campaigned for President Obama in 08, also was a staffer for the Obama Campaign, who in 2009, suggested that Gallup Polling was overcharging the Federal Government for field sampling. The DOJ sat on this until – Mitt Romney was polling 5 points over the President, Axelrod, the Presidents Mentor, Campaign Manager, White House adviser, etc., got a bit hot under the collar and began to blast the polling agency, Gallup also received an invitation to come to the White House and “explain” it’s methodology. When they did not change their methodology, apparently, the DOJ became very interested in the 2009 charges by the Obama Campaign Staffer and a lawsuit ensued. The Times links to the Daily Caller, who has the emails from Gallup Staffers.

Second, there is the similarity between all pollsters besides Gallup showing a deadlocked national race, with a little movement up or down depending upon the candidate. Both candidates received a nominal “bump” in the polls after each convention, not moving up by any significant margin. Unless one counts Bill Clinton, who was a positive force at the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, and would give a boost to a rock if he were speaking at a quarry. That said, from the right and the left, there are charges that the pollsters are not playing fair – and that is the norm for political pollsters – it’s about who they sample, and with random samples, the game changes in a heartbeat. These same pollsters had Carter and Reagan “too close to call” the eve of the election in 1980, and in 1984, Mondale was leading Reagan at this point in August of 1980, during the deep recline in the U.S. economy Gallup Polling had Reagan and Carter in a tie, (Good News Archives).

One can draw the conclusions that polls can be somewhat mistaken, considering that the methodology does not change, and when one understands that Reagan did not win two elections by swings states or a narrow lead in the electoral college, but by a landslide of popular vote in the majority of states - with both Mondale (1984) and Carter (1980) holding one or a handful of states – all of the polling data to date – makes perfect sense.

In the case of the 1980 election, the economy was in tatters, and it did not improve at all prior to the election. In fact there was a third party independent candidate, John Anderson, who was factored into the polling at an usually higher % than the normal 4 to 6% - yet Reagan won in a landslide. In 1984, one can understand that the economy was rocking, Reagan was extremely popular by that point, and well, Mondale was a weak candidate – yet, polls had Mondale with a lead in August, defying reason and pollster logic.

Therefore, the ups and downs and parsing of polls, especially polls that use smaller samples, have a 50-50 chance of being right – or wrong. There are pollsters that lean right and those that lean left in political ideology – there are pollsters that over sample and there are pollsters that word surveys in order to skew the outcome in one direction or the other. The logic follows that the polls would send a message to both candidate and the public: The race is tight, therefore, get out and vote, and/or donate what you have to your favorite candidate to give them the edge.

There are polls that employ a method that uses responses from registered and unregistered voters, polls that use likely voters only, and polls that use registered and likely voters. In those cases, the title of the poll may indicate a lead or a dead heat, but when one looks at the poll internal marginals, the polls is definitely showing a trend towards one candidate or the other- and that is regardless of whether or not the poll is oversampled! This is especially true of the ABC/Washignton Post Poll which gives President Obama a national convention boost of 50 to 44% over GOP Candidate Mitt Romney, or a win for the President with a 2 percent lead outside the margin of error. However, The Marginal’s (PDF here) are titled Obama Gains a Convention Boost – But Not Among Likely Voters” suggests that when one factors in registered voters who are likely to vote, the race becomes a dead heat. The poll samples: “Thirty-two percent of registered voters in this poll identify themselves as Democrats, 26 percent as Republicans and 37 percent as independents “(ABC News).

This follows the 2008 election model. However, a poll conducted by Pew Research in 2010 suggests that the electorate had shifted slightly. , with the Democrats at a 5% advantage, in voter identification (registration): 34% of registered voters identify as Democrats and 29% as Republicans, a plus 2 for the Republicans and a minus 5 for Democrats. Moreover,” non-partisans now stands at 37%, one of the highest levels in the past 20” and those that do: 40% of independents and other non-partisan voters say they lean more to the Republican Party, with 35% leaning Democrat. This model therefore suggests that as of 2010, there would be a tie mathematically with both parties at 69% support including the base and those Independent who lean towards one party or the other. This poll was taken in August, yet, in November, there was a landslide in the U.S. Congress, with an historical Republican gaining the house, and a narrowing of the Democrat Majority in the Senate. To suggest that in 2012 voter samples for the Presidential race would be comparable to 2008 samples rather than 2010 is somewhat disingenuous, and therefore, the polls are skewed from the get-go. Would that automatically give Romney a lead in the polls, obviously no – even using Pew’s model, there was a tie in August of 2010!

Reasonably, the only accurate polls are those that will never be released: the internal campaign polls, which use a huge sample comparatively (especially in national elections), and allow a candidate and their strategists to make decisions as to how to allocate funds, or which states may already be in the “proverbial bag”, therefore, using funds elsewhere where a deficit in internals would indicate the need for more advertising.

Therefore, if a polling trend makes one nervous about their candidate, they can do two things: donate and get out and vote if they hold the belief that their candidate has done/will do a better job in the office. The results will only be known when the dust settles on the morning after the election (or the night of the election, given fast returns and a pattern reminiscent of the 1980 election – which by the way – stunned the press!!).

One can hazard to guess however, if a candidate is pulling ads (not staffers) out of a state, then that state is showing internal polls that suggest the state is “safe”, rather than the “state is lost”. In total, it is not without a bit of satisfaction when one's chosen candidate is given a "lead" in a poll, no matter if that lead is inflated! It is the psychological boost given to the base and/or the leaning independent that all is "well" with their candidate. Conversely, the base and the leaners whose candidate is not in the lead are more motivated (generally) to get out and canvas, donate and support their preferred politician.

This begs the question - are there any accurate polls? Yes and no, it is the pollster who is closest at the time of the elections, uses the most accurate sample of the most current electorate and a large enough sample who will more accurately predict the outcome - unless of course, that pollster is in court.

Canada Severs Ties with Iran – Closes Embassy – Iran Calls Out Canada as Extremist Government!

The Canadian Government severed ties with Iran by closing its embassy in Tehran and expelled Iranian Diplomats from Canada on the 7th of September, announcing that Canada now considers Iran to be a State Sponsor of Terror according to the CBC. The Canadian Government has been roundly criticized for its move in the direction of sanity by the Iranian Government

Iran on Monday said Canada had a “neo-conservative extremist government” as it kept up a furious response to Ottawa’s decision last week to cut diplomatic ties.
Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi used that description in an interview with the Iranian parliament’s website (icana.ir) in which he also said the Canadian government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper was “boundlessly defending international Zionism”.

(GulfNews.com)

In 2009, during the “elections” in Iran that produced nationwide protests that were brutally put down by the Iranian Theocratic Regime, the Canadian’s did what they could to aid those protestors by opening embassy doors to teh wounded. The Canadian Government issued a formal statement on August 4th (See Statement from Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, August 4th 2009). While hired “hit men” were dispatched by the Ayatollahs, using motorcycles and hatchets to break up a large crowd of demonstrators, the Canadians opened their embassy doors, along with a few other European Nations who had diplomatic ties to the Iranian government. It was the beginning of a revolution that was widely unreportedby the Press, and the was not even addressed by the Pro-Democracy, U.S. Administration until the 3 weeks after the first of the conflicts began when President Obama, “condemned the violence”

Given Iran’s recent ramping up of morality laws, which include prison, torture and execution for those who do not comply with its strict moral code (it is anti-women, anti-LGBT, anti-west), the insane rhetoric coming from the Iranian Government regarding Israel and the real threat of a nuclear Iran - why the Canadian’s pulled out their personnel is truly anyone’s best guess. The fact that they did so hastily and without reservations, makes one wonder what they might know is about to happen in the Middle East. It is not a move that would be made without some serious consideration, given that Canada has citizens inside Iran’s prison. The fact that the Canadian’s do not “grandstand” is another reason to be concerned.
For information on the atrocities committed over the years in the name of the Iranian Government, please visit: The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center - it is an eye-opener.