More Obama voters display there lack of knowledge

More confirmation of my last post: business guy with a good plan but no clue on publicity coupled with aparently no college outreach vs the president with no plan but great publicity. (Provided free from colleges and the mainstreet news)

Put plainly Romney and especially the republican leadership failed to reach the college age voters.



Further thoughts.
The post election economic moves by business to prepair for the new Obama care taxes and regulations is underfoot. The post election layoffs/plant closings have begun. Did anybody else besides me notice that when it looked like Romney was going to win earlie during the reporting that the stock market surged only to lower drastically once it was apparent that Obama would win.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-many-businesses-have-announced-closings-or-lay-offs-since-obama-won-a-second-term/

election results...thoughts

Feeling quite shocked since the economy and jobs and taxes were on my mind and supposedly high on many others as well. Rather than hiring a new president with business credentials we re-hired the big spending politician who has proven he does not understand economics or business.

Obama's reteric of "The rich must pay their fair share/free stuff for everybody else" won out over the business guy with the plan but bad marketing. Remember the brieghtbart web sight video of the Ohio Obama college voters? They new nothing of our economic situation or the bengazi failures, nor did they know Romney/Ryan's economic recovery plans. They acted like they never heard of them. Yet they were voting for Obama, it was the cool thing to do.

Neil Boortz top 3 posts in his "Neil's Nuze" today are the best explanations for what happened that I have seen so far. Others have incorrectly blamed the "Tea party and conservatives". Last night the ABC news commentator went so far as to say that speaker Baner will have to go to "thoes" guys and reign them in that they are the reason we are facing the fiscal cliff cause "they" blew it preventing us from getting Obama's tax deal. Yes he actually blamed the runaway deficit spending on the guys who are attempting to be finically sound and want the out of control spending/borrowing to stop. His twist of logic/reality is astounding.

By Neal Boortz
Will somebody please explain how in the hell this makes any sense: Exit polling showed that the economy was, by far, the most important issue in this election for voters … yet, they vote for the SCOAMF?

I’ve outlined in detail the failures of the ObamaEconomy and the ObamaRecovery. But even without that information, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand that Obama has been an abject failure when it comes to our economy and recovery.

So what is going on here? Either people are lying about their top voting issue or they have absolutely no clue. Remember what I told you about the Dunning-Kruger effect? Incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. This is the only way to explain how people can go to the polls with the economy as their top voting issue and push the button for Obama.
These are the people who believe that it is possible to tax our way to prosperity and that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. These are the people who believe that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary. And these people are now, officially, the predominant force in America. Yesterday, they proved that.
I warned you that the greatest threat to this country are these uneducated voters. I hope you are making plans to get out of dodge, because the moochers are outnumbering you and they have the numbers on their side to vote their way into your pocketbook.


"The argument could be made that this was our last chance .. this election … 2012. Our LAST chance … and we blew it. Turning this country back toward freedom, economic liberty and self reliance will be an even tougher task in the midterm elections of 2014, and probably impossible in 2016. By 2016 even more Americans will realize that they can use the ballot as a weapon .. a legal weapon .. to do something that would put them in jail if they did it with a gun … and that is take someone else’s money. Game. Set. Match.

Those people cheering this Obama victory have no real idea what is going on in the minds of business owners across America today. Some are making plans to close less-profitable locations and lay off employees. Some businessmen are shelving plans for expansion and more hiring, deciding that it would be better to take their money and put it where it will be safe from the coming tax increases. Other businessmen are preparing to fire some employees and reduce others to part-time status in order to stay below the employee threshold on ObamaCare. People who voted for Obama yesterday will be out of a job by the end of the week because their election wishes came true.
Here’s an interesting dynamic that the low-information voters who put Obama over the top will not be able to grasp. As businesses cut back on employees, and as they move more employees to a part-time status in order to escape the mandates of ObamaCare and other government regulations, the employees who will suffer; the employees who will lose their jobs or be relegated to part-time status with lower pay, will be the less capable, less educated employees who voted for Obama yesterday. They will never understand that their job situation has become more tenuous because of the vote they cast. They simply aren’t intelligent enough to understand that. They’ve done this to themselves, but they are too ignorant to realize it.

Are you wondering what the wonderful low-information voters have brought us on this day after the election?

Here … let me drop a few reminders:
Higher taxes on productive Americans, of course. Exit polls showed that most voters want this. Obama’s class warfare tactics worked like a charm.
Labor unions will renew their push for card-check; unionization by intimidation.
Taxes on jobs producing small businessmen will almost certainly go up.
Obama will issue a call for another multi-billion dollar stimulus bill that will do nothing other than reward cronies and campaign contributors.
Doctors who have been in practice for many years will be closing up shop. They know what a nightmare ObamaCare is going to be for their patients, and they want no part of it.

The Second Amendment will come under immediate attack. The United Nations will be used as an excuse to limit our rights.

The EPA will unleash a flood of new “clean air” regulations that will all but destroy the coal industry and bring huge increases in the cost of energy.

Democrats will start talking about a scheme to levy a tax against retirement and pension funds on the premise that it is not fair that some people are going to have a comfortable retirement while others will have to shove shopping carts at customers entering Wal-Marts.
The push for ETIs will return. Economically Targeted Investments. This means that the government will tell you where you can and cannot invest your qualified retirement (401K, IRA) funds. The purpose will be to force you to invest these funds in “union-friendly” (i.e., unionized) companies.
Democrats will develop schemes to punish states with Right-To-Work laws in an attempt to force more Americans into joining unions in order to work.
Democrats will attack talk radio with community advisory boards and shorter license renewal periods. Syndicated talk radio may be a thing of the past in four years, except for Clark Howard, of course."

real good you tube video.

Retired rear admiral confirms Glen Beck's theory of the Obama administration running guns to Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups, and that American Military personnel were set to respond to the attackers. Only someone very high up in the Obama administration countermanded the order of Admiral William McRaven Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command .

My post title is taken from my read of the recently posted Washington times column by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons. He is someone who is very qualified to discuss this subject from an inside baseball point of view.

From his online biography, his qualifications:

ADMIRAL JAMES “ACE” LYONS, JR., U.S. Navy Retired was an Officer of the U.S. Navy for thirty-six years, most recently as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the largest single military command in the world, his initiatives contributed directly to the economic stability and humanitarian understanding in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions and brought the U.S. Navy Fleet back to China. He also served as Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations. As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 – 1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters, and he was, the father of the Navy Red Cell, an anti-terrorism group comprised of Navy Seals he established in response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. Admiral Lyons was also Commander of the U.S. Second Fleet and Commander of the NATO Striking Fleet which were the principle fleets for implementing the Maritime Strategy. Admiral Lyons has represented U.S. interests with military and civilian leadership worldwide – including China, Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, the European continent and Russia. As Fleet Commander he managed a budget of over $5 billion and controlled a force of 250,000 personnel. Key assignments preceding Flag rank included Chief of Staff, Commander Carrier Group Four, Commanding Officer, USS Richmond K. Turner (CG-20) and Commanding Officer, USS Charles S. Sperry (DD697). He has been recognized for his distinguished service by the United States and several foreign governments. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has received post graduate degrees from the U.S. Naval War College and the U.S. National Defense University.


LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi
The American people deserve to know the truth


By Adm. James A. Lyons Sunday, October 28, 2012.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.



We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”



In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.




Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.



Our Benghazi mission personnel, including our two former Navy SEALs, fought for seven hours without any assistance other than help from our embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of our Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack.


Once the attack commenced, Stevens was taken to a “safe room” within the mission. It is not known whether his location was betrayed by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the local force providing security to the consulate, which had ties to the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group conducting the attack, and to al Qaeda. Unbelievably, we still do not know how Ambassador Stevens died.


The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.


I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.


I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.


Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.


Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.


Retired Adm. James A. Lyons. (bolding by buglover34465)


Here is my problem with all this, the one thing in my opinion, that Obama and his administration were attempting to cover up.
After George Bush spent Billions of dollars on two wars and many American soldiers lives, attacking, routing, and killing the leadership of AL Qaeda, (the group responsible for killing 3000 plus Americans in the 9.11.2001 Terrorist attack) why is the Obama Administration re-arming, and refunding them?

Buglover34465

Copy of Black five post info from a "legandary Delta operator" confirming weapons systems were in the air over Bengazi.

POSTED BY BLACKFIVE • [OCTOBER 26, 2012] Having a back and forth with a former legendary Delta operator. Here is the gist of what he is implying: The news is breaking today but there is a small bit that is being overlooked. According to the statements from Fox News: The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Everyone is reporting this but they are missing a key point. From the retired Delta operator: Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me. One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station. Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area. If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed. If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS! This is far bigger than Watergate. The second worst feeling in the world has to be the platform crew being desperately asked for help, given a clear target and then having to stand down and watch your fellow Americans die. The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.

Damming update to king David post..evidence that the president would have known in 4 minuets of the attack.

'STAND DOWN': U.S. HAD TWO DRONES, AC-130 GUNSHIP, AND TARGETS PAINTED IN BENGHAZI

by AWR HAWKINS 27 Oct 2012 Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used. This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack. You'll remember that in the second presidential debate, Obama said that as "soon as I was aware the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team." The not-so-subtle intimation is that Obama was stepping up to the protect the U.S. personnel who were in Libya. And in the wakes of their deaths, which weren't "optimal," we have been assured that stronger action wasn't taken stronger because those options weren't available. Sec. of State Leon Panetta gave us another version this same excuse, saying: "The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over." There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making. 1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area -- both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drone may have been armed. 2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel. 3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came. Obama says he was doing everything he could, and Panetta says we didn't react more strongly because we weren't sure what was going on. Yet we now know two drones were sending back video of the attack in real time, and at least one of those drones may have been armed. We also know a massive AC-130 gunship could have been used for backup as well, but it was not. And we know that security was begging for backup and even marking targets with lasers for the drones and/or gunship so they could make quick work of the attackers. Yet Obama chose not to respond, and that's the bottom line. --------by JOEL B. POLLAK 26 Oct 2012 Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus's denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist "would have been a presidential decision." Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were "happening." Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex. Jake Tapper quoted Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame: So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No. It would have been a presidential decision.

Update to King David post

It seems to me that muslim friendly Obama has sided with the muslim brotherhood and is attempting to help them in their effort to take over the arab world. This explains why we helped over-throw Egypt and Libia, which were already our allies/governments working in our interests. And why we are helping the rebels in Syria. It also leads credence to my king david /mob boss theory of having no witnesses and no evidence equals no case against them. Beck reminded that it has been widely reported that President Obama has a close relationship with the Turkish prime minister, before continuing: An hour after that, the Turkish ambassador leaves through the front door and the front gate, unmolested. Now you tell me– why was the Turkish general counsel there? …Why was it so important on Sept. 11 to go to the most dangerous city, into a CIA safe house? An hour after he leaves, the fight begins. We now know that the White House– somebody, the military, somebody, sent a drone. So there was a live video feed of what was going on. They’re watching it in the State Department, they’re watching it at the Pentagon, they’re watching it at Langley, and they’re watching it in the Situation Room. At 5:00 in the afternoon, Leon Panetta has a meeting with the president of the United States. The first email comes at 4:05. So the Secretary of Defense arrives at the White House to have a meeting with the president 55 minutes after the Situation Room and everybody else gets an email saying, ‘Libya, the safe house is under attack.” ​[Emphasis added] Beck proceeded to read several more emails explaining how our personnel in Benghazi were missing and under attack, before he got to one time-stamped at 6:07. According to the memo, Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack and– though he isn’t sure– Beck said it’s possible that Ansar al-Sharia was one of the groups that we gave arms and funding to during the war to overthrow Gaddhafi. “This is why the White House covered, because our ambassador was killed by [guys] we were running guns to, and we are still running guns today.” He then read an international report from Russia Today saying U.S. Stinger Missiles are in the hands of Syrian rebels, adding that the New York Times has also reported that we are using the Muslim Brotherhood to arm the rebels in Syria. Beck concluded the segment: “This president is on the wrong side. It is so crystal clear…let’s just take it one step at a time. The President of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They lied to you and said, ‘this might be a video, we don’t have all the information, the information is still sketchy, it’s confusing,’…We now have the documents that came into the Situation Room saying, ‘There’s an attack, they’re watching.’ Then, we have the documents that we had a live video feed in the Situation Room, so they could see that there was no protest. ​Then there are the documents– and there’s now 13, with this new one– there’s now 13 different documents saying it’s a terrorist attack, and here’s the group that’s doing it. And they lied to you.” Russia: Syria rebels have US-made weapons ---http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20055271 --- The West has been reluctant to openly arm the rebels Continue reading the main story Syria conflict Aleppo's frontline trauma hospital Turkish town scarred Echoes of Spanish civil war No-man's land A senior Russian general has said Syrian rebels now have anti-aircraft weapons, including US-made Stingers. Gen Nikolai Makarov was quoted by the Interfax news service as saying the origin of the surface-to-air missiles should be "cleared up". Russia is the biggest supplier of arms to its Syrian government ally. Aerial bombardment of rebel-held towns continued on Wednesday, as the UN's Syria envoy prepared to brief the Security Council on ceasefire efforts. Lakhdar Brahimi has been trying to arrange a ceasefire between rebels and government forces over the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, which begins on Friday. Weapon supplies "We have reliable information that Syrian militants have foreign portable anti-aircraft missile systems, including those made in the USA... it should be cleared up who delivered them," Gen Makarov told journalists in Russia. There have been earlier unconfirmed reports of the Syrian opposition having shoulder-mounted missiles, but the West has been reluctant to openly arm the rebels. In August, Syrian rebels said they had shot down a fighter jet near the border with Iraq.