A Must Read - The Untold Eyewitness Story Of The Paris Bataclan Killings

If you read nothing else today, take the time to read this gripping interview on the November 2015 Bataclan jihad attack in Paris with Eagles of Death Metal vocalist Jesse Hughes. The interview was conducted by Gavin McInnes over at Taki's Magazine. Hughes's band was onstage when the jihad killings occurred. This is his eye witness account of what happened. Hughes feels that the media totally misrepresented the story, with details pulled out of context from his previous interviews and manipulated to support editorializing and commentary that was completely opposed to his views.

Hughes tells exactly what happened, how it was handled and the implications for the future in the War on Jihad.

Here's a taste:

McInnes: It’s hard to talk about the attack without sounding like you’re blaming the victims, but it’s impossible to deny fear of Islamophobia and fear of guns led to a lot of deaths that night.

Jesse Hughes:: I saw fear fall like a blanket on the whole crowd and they fell like wheat in the wind—the way you would before a god. I was totally alert from the very beginning. The first thing I needed to do was find my girl. Fear took a backseat and “where’s my girl?” took over. I could smell gunpowder in the backstage area and I knew someone fired a round back there. I saw a guy with an FAL and when he turned to face me his eyes looked like marbles. He was stoned out of his mind, and we now know they were on Xanax and cocaine. I recognized him. I’d seen him earlier in the day and noticed him staring at us.

McInnes: They were in the venue early. That implies some staff were in on it.

Jesse Hughes:I got in a lot of trouble for saying that. I know for sure that they were in there early. I remember them staring at my buddy. I just chalked it up to Arab envy. You know what I mean? When a Muslim sees a cocky American dude with tattoos, he stares at him. I realized later it was Abdeslam and he was staring at my buddy because they thought he was a threat. There’s no denying the terrorists were already inside, and they had to get in somehow. During the shooting I went outside and the backstage door was propped open. How did that happen?

McInnes: Do you think political correctness is killing our natural instincts and making us vulnerable?

Jesse Hughes:Definitely. There were two girls who were involved. They were at the venue and vanished before the shooting, and these women were in traditional Muslim garb. They knew people wouldn’t check them because of the way they were dressed. They got caught a few days later.

McInnes:The fear of offending Muslims is a terrorist’s greatest weapon.

Jesse Hughes:Look at the guys who bombed Brussels. They were wearing black gloves on one hand. Their luggage was too heavy to lift, but they didn’t want anyone helping them with it. Nobody brought any of this up until after the bombs went off.

McInnes:We’d rather die than be called a bigot.

Jesse Hughes: How is a faith being associated with racism? Just take out the word “Islam” and replace it with “communism.” It’s an ideology. The same way the Rosenbergs could sell nuclear secrets from within America is the same way Muslim terrorists can attack us from within. It’s okay to be discerning when it comes to Muslims in this day and age.

McInnes: Where is this push coming from? Is it all our fault?

Jesse Hughes:Of course not. When you’re at a soccer game in Europe and you see the words “United Arab Emirates,” you know there is a lot of Arab money floating around and influencing the dialogue. The conversation is constantly being steered away from scrutiny. They think we’re fools.

Arab money is a pollutant. So many movies are made with Arab money. George Clooney doesn’t kiss the ass of the Arabs for no reason. American movies are the best way to influence the hearts and minds of the world.

Read the whole interview at Taki's Magazine. Highly recommended.


.

Trump On Foreign Policy - An In Depth Interview

 

Donald Trump recently sat down for a long interview on Foreign Policy with a couple of New York Times reporters in which he weighed in on a number of interesting topics. Some of his answers may surprise you.  Here's a slice:

Over two telephone conversations on Friday, Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, discussed his views on foreign policy with Maggie Haberman and David E. Sanger of The New York Times. Here is an edited transcript of their interview:

HABERMAN: I wanted to ask you about some things that you said in Washington on Monday, more recently. But you’ve talked about them a bunch. So, you have said on several occasions that you want Japan and South Korea to pay more for their own defense. You’ve been saying versions of that about Japan for 30 years. Would you object if they got their own nuclear arsenal, given the threat that they face from North Korea and China?

TRUMP: Well, you know, at some point, there is going to be a point at which we just can’t do this anymore. And, I know the upsides and the downsides. But right now we’re protecting, we’re basically protecting Japan, and we are, every time North Korea raises its head, you know, we get calls from Japan and we get calls from everybody else, and “Do something.” And there’ll be a point at which we’re just not going to be able to do it anymore. Now, does that mean nuclear? It could mean nuclear. It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation. At the same time, you know, we’re a country that doesn’t have money. You know, when we did these deals, we were a rich country. We’re not a rich country. We were a rich country with a very strong military and tremendous capability in so many ways. We’re not anymore. We have a military that’s severely depleted. We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape. They don’t even know if they work. We’re not the same country, Maggie and David, I mean, I think you would both agree.

SANGER: So, just to follow Maggie’s thought there, though, the Japanese view has always been, if the United States, at any point, felt as if it was uncomfortable defending them, there has always been a segment of Japanese society, and of Korean society that said, “Well, maybe we should have our own nuclear deterrent, because if the U.S. isn’t certain, we need to make sure the North Koreans know that.” Is that a reasonable position. Do you think at some point they should have their own arsenal?

TRUMP: Well, it’s a position that we have to talk about, and it’s a position that at some point is something that we have to talk about, and if the United States keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway with or without me discussing it, because I don’t think they feel very secure in what’s going on with our country, David. You know, if you look at how we backed our enemies, it hasn’t – how we backed our allies – it hasn’t exactly been strong. When you look at various places throughout the world, it hasn’t been very strong. And I just don’t think we’re viewed the same way that we were 20 or 25 years ago, or 30 years ago. And, you know, I think it’s a problem. You know, something like that, unless we get very strong, very powerful and very rich, quickly, I’m sure those things are being discussed over there anyway without our discussion.

HABERMAN: Will you –

SANGER: And would you have an objection to it?

TRUMP: Um, at some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now. And you have, Pakistan has them. You have, probably, North Korea has them. I mean, they don’t have delivery yet, but you know, probably, I mean to me, that’s a big problem. And, would I rather have North Korea have them with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that’s the case. In other words, where Japan is defending itself against North Korea, which is a real problem. You very well may have a better case right there. We certainly haven’t been able to do much with him and with North Korea. But you may very well have a better case. You know, one of the things with the, with our Japanese relationship, and I’m a big fan of Japan, by the way. I have many, many friends there. I do business with Japan. But, that, if we are attacked, they don’t have to do anything. If they’re attacked, we have to go out with full force. You understand. That’s a pretty one-sided agreement, right there. In other words, if we’re attacked, they do not have to come to our defense, if they’re attacked, we have to come totally to their defense. And that is a, that’s a real problem.

Nuclear Weapons, Cyberwarfare and Spying on Allies

HABERMAN: Would you, you were just talking about the nuclear world we live in, and you’ve said many times, and I’ve heard you say it throughout the campaign, that you want the U.S. to be more unpredictable. Would you be willing to have the U.S. be the first to use nuclear weapons in a confrontation with adversaries?

TRUMP: An absolute last step. I think it’s the biggest, I personally think it’s the biggest problem the world has, nuclear capability. I think it’s the single biggest problem. When people talk global warming, I say the global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that times many, many times, is what you have today. And to me, it’s the single biggest, it’s the single biggest problem.

SANGER: You know, we have an alternative these days in a growing cyberarsenal. You’ve seen the growing cybercommand and so forth. Could you give us a vision of whether or not you think that the United States should regularly be using cyberweapons, perhaps, as an alternative to nuclear? And if so, how would you either threaten or employ those?

TRUMP: I don’t see it as an alternative to nuclear in terms of, in terms of ultimate power. Look, in the perfect world everybody would agree that nuclear would, you know, be so destructive, and this was always the theory, or was certainly the theory of many. That the power is so enormous that nobody would ever use them. But, as you know, we’re dealing with people in the world today that would use them, O.K.? Possibly numerous people that use them, and use them without hesitation if they had them. And there’s nothing, there’s nothing as, there’s nothing as meaningful or as powerful as that, and you know the problem is, and it used to be, and you would hear this, David, and I would hear it, and everybody would hear it, and — I’m not sure I believed it, ever. I talk sometimes about my uncle from M.I.T., and he would tell me many years ago when he was up at M.I.T. as a, he was a professor, he was a great guy in many respects, but a very brilliant guy, and he would tell me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it’s going to be a scary world. And, you know, we have been under the impression that, well we’ve been, I think it’s misguided somewhat, I’ve always felt this but that nobody would ever use them because of the power. And the first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use them, that I can say.

HABERMAN: O.K.

SANGER: The question was about cyber, how would you envision using cyberweapons? Cyberweapons in an attack to take out a power grid in a city, so forth.

TRUMP: First off, we’re so obsolete in cyber. We’re the ones that sort of were very much involved with the creation, but we’re so obsolete, we just seem to be toyed with by so many different countries, already. And we don’t know who’s doing what. We don’t know who’s got the power, who’s got that capability, some people say it’s China, some people say it’s Russia. But certainly cyber has to be a, you know, certainly cyber has to be in our thought process, very strongly in our thought process. Inconceivable that, inconceivable the power of cyber. But as you say, you can take out, you can take out, you can make countries non-functioning with a strong use of cyber. I don’t think we’re there. I don’t think we’re as advanced as other countries are, and I think you probably would agree with that. I don’t think we’re advanced, I think we’re going backwards in so many different ways. I think we’re going backwards with our military. I certainly don’t think we are, we move forward with cyber, but other countries are moving forward at a much more rapid pace. We are frankly not being led very well in terms of the protection of this country.

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

A lot  more interesting stuff at the link.

Interesting Video - Hannity Grills House Speaker Candidate Kevin McCarthy

Sean Hannity does a good job here of grilling House Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on how he'd be different than John Boehner, and McCarthy actually holds his own fairly well.

He's definitely right about Mitch McConnell and the Senate's primary responsibility in failing to pass a number of good legislation that's made it through the House.

Is Obama An Anti-Semite?

President Barack Obama had something to say about that in a servile interview with the Leftist Jewish magazine Forward:

President Obama challenged critics who suggested that he was anti-Semitic as he continues to promote his nuclear deal with Iran, ignoring Israeli leaders who are expressing concerns about it.

“There’s not a smidgen of evidence for it, other than the fact that there have been times where I’ve disagreed with a particular Israeli government’s position on a particular issue,” Obama said in an interview with Forward.com when asked how he felt about the accusation.

Of course, one shouldn't expect the Forward to do much in the way of a real interview with this president. To show how hilarious the whole thing was, after allowing President Obama to repeat his usual talking points about how wonderful the Iran deal is, they finished up with this idiocy:

Q: Thank you. One last question. One of my daughters wants to know, what’s your favorite bagel flavor?

THE PRESIDENT: I was always a big poppy seed guy.

Q: Poppy seed.

THE PRESIDENT: So the poppy seed bagels at H&H Bagels — which somebody told me they closed —

BEN RHODES: They closed.

Q: It’s closed, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Which is shocking.

MR. RHODES: My school was a block from H&H bagels.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, I would walk down from —

MR. RHODES: Columbia.

THE PRESIDENT: — Columbia just to get H&H bagels on Saturdays or on the weekends.

Q: And what do you like on a poppy seed?

THE PRESIDENT: Just a schmear.

Q: Just a schmear.

THE PRESIDENT: Lox and capers okay, but generally just your basic schmear.


Yes, one of those tough, hard hitting interviews.Notice how he had to be prompted on Columbia University by his director of strategic communications Ben Rhodes, who apparently sat in on this?

But let's address the question seriously, shall we? The first thing that caught my eye was the president's language about there not being a smidgen of evidence that he was anti-semitic or anti-Israel. Now where did we hear that before?

Oh, now I remember! It was back when this president told us that there wasn't a smidgen of corruption in the IRS after allegations that the IRS targeted the president's political enemies or conservative groups. Oddly enough, one of them, Z-Street is a pro-Israel organization run by a friend of mine, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a Pennsylvania lawyer.

They won a suit against the Obama IRS last year for exactly this kind of targeting. And Z Street was by no means the only one targeted. Admittedly, we have, shall we say, a less than effective Republican leadership and caucus, so this never got pursued to its logical end. But there was obviously more than a smidgen of corruption based on what we now know and how the White House chose to stonewall things.

So, when this president talks about a smidgen of anything, what should we assume that means?

Since we can't know what's in Barack Obama's heart and he's not exactly the most truthful of men, let's examine this in another way and see if we can get a clue.

Suppose, hypothetically, a public figure is accused of racism against blacks, which he of course denies.

So you look into his background. And you find that from his earliest days, his closest associates have been people like Tom Metzger, Willis Carto, David Duke, Sam Bowers,Bill Church, Larry Payne, Stormfront's Don Black and Chloê Hardi and Bo Gritz.


Let's say that his pastor whom he described as his 'spiritual mentor' was Thomas Robb and his church for two decades was Robb's Christian Revival Center.

Let's further assume that this man was our president, that his administration includes a number of people with questionable views on Africa and on American blacks, and that his administration has policies toward African nations that appear to be hostile.

In fact, let's imagine that Black and Hardi are regular visitors to the White House and help in determining political strategy. And that this president is clever enough to have a number of self-serving blacks in his employ or in a bogus 'civil rights' organization he created as a cover for any accusations of racism.

I think many people might describe this politician as a racist, or at the very least someone with racist tendencies. After all, if you hang with those folks, there's obviously an affinity, no?

Let's examine President Barack Obama with that same criteria. The comparison isn't totally workable, since racism against blacks is socially unacceptable in much of the world, not well organized and hardly funded while anti-semitism, sometimes disguised as 'anti-Zionism' is well organized, socially chic and thriving, but let's try and see what we can do.

Let's see...closely associated with Jew haters and Israel bashers his entire life, including Frank Marshall Davis, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers (who dedicated one of his books, Prairie Fire to Sirhan Sirhan) and George Soros, to name just a few.

Check.

Participated in and helped organize the Nation Of Islam's 'Million Man March' with Louis Farrakhan, one of the worst public exhibitions of Jew hatred in American history.

Check.

Spent two decades in a rabidly anti-Israel church with a harshly 'anti-Zionist' pastor.

Check.

Has noted anti-Semite Al Sharpton as an intimate who is frequently at the White House and whom helps in determining political strategy. And has a number of servile, secular Leftist Jews in his employ, including the folks at J Street, the anti-Israel organization he created with George Soros as a cover.

Check.

Gave out the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Jew haters like Bishop Tutu, and to anti-Israel UN functionary Mary Robinson, who officiated over the the infamous Durban Conference and did nothing to stop it.

Check

On record as saying he wanted to create 'daylight; between America and Israel, and insists on creating 500,000 Jewish refugees and moving Israel back to indefensible borders. And best pals with Samantha Power, who wrote that the US should send its army to impose this and forcibly evict the Jews. Also, has said publicly that Israel has no rights to its religious sites in Jerusalem and must give them up to 'Palestine'. Refused to honor guarantees made by the Bush Administration as part of the Road Map to include Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as part of Israel in any peace settlement as a quid pro quo for Israel's disengagement from Gaza. Openly lied and said they never existed.

Check.

Gave out more money to the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians, including Hamas, than any other president in history. Armed and trained two combat brigades under the PLO and armed and trained Hezbollah, an officially designated terrorist group.

Check

The only president since Israel became an ally in 1970 ever to hold up arms
shipments during a shooting war. And actually put in place an arms embargo on Israel for his first three months in office.

Check.

illegally Interfered directly in Israel's last election with money and operatives, and threw a tantrum when that failed.

And finally, put together a farcical deal with the genocidal Iran that will
allow them to have a clear path towards nuclear weapons. And has used
anti-semitic themes and buzz words against people who opposed it.

Check.

Hmmmm...it does seem like a pattern is emerging, doesn't it?

In the end of course, it doesn't really matter if President Obama claims to like an occasional bagel or has a nice smile and a warm greeting for certain Jews he finds useful.

It's the overall pattern of actions and associations that count, and I will let you decide what that signifies. Especially when it comes to his obvious hostility towards the only Jewish country on earth, whom he obviously treats differently than any other, and not in a good way. There's a word for that.

it was Jesse Jackson (yet another Obama associate with less than complimentary views of Jews) , who has known the Obamas for decades who famously said in 2008 " Now that Obama's elected, the Zionists are going to lose all their clout."

It does seem he knew what he was talking about.

Trump Defends Planned Parenthood

Remember Donald Trump's fairy tale about how he was now pro life at the GOP debate? How he knew a couple who were considering abortion but decided against it, and now that kid is a 'superstar?'

Well, today on Hannity, the real Donald once again revealed himself:

Hannity threw a few softballs at Trump, but also pressed him a little on specific policy proposals for Obamacare, the economy, and even Planned Parenthood.

And Trump kind of surprised Hannity by defending them, saying that abortion is only a “fairly small part of what they do” and overall they do a great service for women, so “we have to look at the positive also for Planned Parenthood.”

Why yes! Our taxes should definitely continue to fund trafficking in baby body parts.

I pretty much said everything I had to say about Trump's candidacy here.

He's there to ensure that his friends the Clintons get back into the White House, just like Ross Perot did in 1992. Trump ias this year's Ross perot

An Interesting Interview With The Head Of FOX News

The Hollywood Reporter has a fascinating interview with Roger Ailes, the head of FOX news, by far the number one cable news station. It's a very fair and balanced (no pun intended) portrait of a man who has become a legend in the news business. Here are a few bits:

We talk for nearly two hours about everything from Hillary Clinton ("Do you believe that the stuff on 30,000 emails that were destroyed after the prosecutor told [her] to keep it had things on it about yoga? I don't"), the 2016 presidential field in general ("I haven't heard anybody in election campaigns say things that would make me run out and vote for them yet"), exiled NBC News anchor Brian Williams ("I'd put Brian back, but I'd do it the right way"), fatherhood ("It made me a coward") and his legacy ("I don't give a rat's ass what the world thinks").
As I sit across from Ailes on this Wednesday morning in early April, his eyes dart reflexively to the wall of six televisions to the left of his desk; his networks, Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network, and the competition, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Bloomberg. My eyes repeatedly wander to a framed photo on a shelf over his left shoulder. It is an iconic black-and-white photograph of Martin Luther King Jr. escorting children into their newly integrated school in Grenada, Miss., in 1966.

The picture is signed by Dr. Bernice King and Dr. Alveda King, King's daughter and niece, respectively, who attended in November the graduation ceremony for the Ailes Apprenticeship Program, a diversity education program he founded in 2004. In point of fact, though, Ailes actually knew Dr. King back in the 1960s — the two crossed paths occasionally when Ailes was a local TV producer in Philadelphia. It's a nugget of Ailes' 'biography that some might find surprising. [...}

As the country enters a presidential campaign season with dynastic implications, Ailes has a dilemma: How much oxygen does he give the fringe GOP candidates who could torment likely frontrunner Jeb Bush and potentially aid Hillary Clinton in the process. It's not a question he answers directly. "I just don't think I should weigh in on it, even in the press because people will think, 'Well, that's the way he's making the network go.' But it looks like Hillary is going to do whatever she wants," he says, "and the press is going to vote for her."

Asked if he thinks Ted Cruz, the intransigent Texas tea party candidate, has a chance of securing the GOP nomination, Ailes deflects: "Listen, we elected Warren G. Harding. Anybody has a chance. You don't know who you're going to be running against. If the other guy falls on his rear end, you could win." [...]

Ailes always has been in the trenches, and that hasn't changed. He's known to call the control room if he sees his anchors straying into territory over which he objects. "I say, 'Tell them to cut this shit out, but don't tell them I called because that will raise the level too high.' " He participates in the 8 a.m. executive meeting (usually by phone), makes all programming decisions and sometimes even negotiates directly with talent (Megyn Kelly, who is a lawyer, negotiates her own contracts directly with Ailes). [...]


Still, there have been changes at the network since the 2012 election, with Ailes clearly wooing a younger brand of conservative. (The network's median age — over 65 — is the oldest of the news networks, though Fox News still outrates the competition among the advertiser-coveted 25-to-54 demographic.) In 2013, he moved Kelly into the 9 p.m. slot occupied for more than a decade by conservative firebrand Sean Hannity. And he built Shepard Smith — an empathic reporter often suspected of being liberal — a $7 million studio and made him the network's on-call anchor throughout the evening.

"Nobody else has this — it's very expensive," says Smith of his show's News Deck, which is staffed by dozens of producers who monitor news feeds and social media for what amounts to a perpetual news factory. "We're paying a lot of people in case something happens. It's an enormous commitment, and nobody else is making it. But those things don't get talked about. What gets talked about is O'Reilly bloviating about something."

Fox News has 19 liberals on the payroll, though they're often dismissed as straw men. When I put this to Juan Williams, a veteran commentator who wrote a well-regarded biography of Thurgood Marshall, he laughs. "Can you get a witness? I'm a witness.

"Clearly the audience likes the kind of tilt that exists [at Fox News]," he says. "But they're not stupid. They want to hear a real, honest conversation. I am allowed to make substantial, critical arguments. And that never gets stepped on."

Williams, in fact, has known Ailes since 1984, when Williams was covering the White House for the Washington Post and Ailes was a campaign advisor for Ronald Reagan.

"Part of the struggle of being a skinny black kid with an afro covering the Reagan White House is that a lot of people [there] basically thought I was the enemy. Ailes' response to me was, 'You're an underdog in this situation, aren't you? I got your back; I'm going to help you.' And he became a key source for me."

Interestingly, while Fox News is the go-to channel for conservatives, about 37 percent of its audience holds "mixed" views, according to a 2014 Pew study, while 14 percent are "liberal" and 4 percent are "consistently liberal." But Ailes doesn't appear to be all that interested in bringing more of these people to his network. "I don't give a rat's ass," he says, breaking out his favorite rodent reference. "My job is to cover the news and do it accurately and fair. And we do. And voila! We have the largest number of independents watching television of any channel. Why is that? Not because we suck around and try to talk these people into watching our programming. We do programming that appeals to them, and so they tune to us. That's how you get them. You can't be chasing these little balkanized groups of people around. It's just nuts. Do your programming. It should be American. We're Americans. It's a culture. We should defend that culture, and we should reinforce that culture."

The full interview is here, and definitely worth a read.

Must See - Israeli Minister Naftali Bennett Vs. The BBC

Here we see Israeli economics minister Naftali Bennett making an appearance on the BBC's 'Hard Talk', hosted by one Stephen Sackur, who perhaps needs to learn that in an interview, if you want answers it's usually a good idea to listen, not talk over your guest and let the interviewee finish his sentences.

Nevertheless, Naftali Bennett makes an admirable showing. I especially found it humorous to watch Sackur (who, full disclosure is married to an Iraqi Arab and has always been outspokenly pro-Palestinian) lecture Israel's economics minister (and a multi-millionaire in his own right) on the state of Israel's economy.

Money quote from Bennett: "Would you hand over half of Britain to someone who keeps on killing you?"

Of course Sackur didn't answer that, but in reality the Brits are doing just that in places like Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, although they probably don't realize it yet. So are the French in La Zone and elsewhere, the Swedes in Malmö, and Norwegians in certain parts of Oslo, among others. This also explains a great deal about the anti-Israel sentiment in many European countries; aside from thei rown generic Jew hatred, they have now imported a huge number of Muslim voters with their own religiously inherent anti-semitism, and politicians if nothing else can count votes.

The implicit threats of boycotts against Israel also come from a similar place. Blackmailers of this sort will always do what they threaten to do to you eventually anyway, so Bennett's stance that a strong, secure Israel with things the world wants to buy is more likely to prosper and attract trade and investment than a cringing and vulnerable one makes a great deal of sense.

An Interview With Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

 

One of the more successful conservative governors in the U.S. is Wisconsin's Scott Walker, whose been attracting increasing attention nationally as a possible 2016 presidential candidate, especially if he wins re-election. He has a new book out about exactly how he was successful in Wisconsin andhis thoughts about national affair called, Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story and a Nation’s Challenge, that's a decent read. My pal John Hawkins over at Right Wing News scored an interesting interview with Governor Walker ...here's a slice:


Outside of Wisconsin you are most famous for taking on the unions in your state; briefly tell us what you did legislatively and what the impact of it has been on the state.
 
The easiest way to explain it is we had a choice.  In the past the big union bosses had been in charge of both state and local government.  We made a change that ultimately put the hard working taxpayers back in charge and by that, what I mean is under the old system of collective bargaining, not only the state but local governments had to abide by union contracts that many times were run contrary to the best interest of the taxpayers and to the people they newly elected.  So we came in early 2011, we faced a big budget deficit, $3.6 billion per capita, one of the biggest in the country — and we knew to balance our budget we weren’t going to raise taxes, we weren’t going to do massive layoffs, we weren’t going to cut things like Medicaid.  Instead we put in place these long-term structure reforms that put the power back in the hands of, again, of the hard working taxpayers.

By pulling back on collective bargaining we empowered local governments, school districts, counties, cities, towns, villages, and the state to go out and control and not only get things like reasonable pension and healthcare contributions which were nowhere in line with the private sector, but they got to change work rules and everything else as part of running a government.  We went from a $3.6 billion budget deficit to today we finished our fiscal year off with just shy of a $760 million surplus.  We cut taxes a billion and a half and an unemployment rate that was once 9.2% is now 6.3% —  so we’ve had some positive results and we’re going to keep on that path.

Yeah, that’s an amazing record.  Now even despite that, there were a lot of people on the other side, politically, who were very unhappy about what you were doing.  You were demonized, not just in Wisconsin, but all across the country. You were the biggest, baddest Republican in the whole country.  Tell us about some of the abuse and threats that you and your family suffered as a result of that because it is really amazing some of the things that were aimed at you.

It seems almost like an eternity ago, but on February 11, 2011 — almost three years ago, we introduced our reforms.  By the next week, 14 of the state Senate Democrats had left the state — much like our Democrat leaders down in Texas years ago in redistricting.  They did it in this case because of our reform.  They left Wisconsin and went to Illinois and that bought them some time and it went from just thousands of just in-state protestors to within a few weeks to as many as 100,000 protesters in and around our state capital.  Obviously many of them had come in from far beyond the borders of Wisconsin. They were initially bussed out from Chicago — but eventually from New York and New Jersey and Washington and Nevada and elsewhere — and that’s not just speculation on our part; we saw the signs.  We saw the banners, we saw the hats and the jackets that would say this union or that union from other parts of the country.

……And the protestors themselves were pretty intense, but it was beyond that.  The protestors would shout me down; they would shout down lawmakers at events.  They would not allow people to speak.  It eventually got to the point where I and even some of our Senate Republicans in particular got death threats.  I got threats against me probably a stack high from the ground.  As I point out in my book Unintimidated, we had one of the most egregious ones, one that I got right before I went into a press conference.  It was directed actually at my wife, pointing out that a governor had never been assassinated before in Wisconsin, but that she should start paying attention and that they not only were going to target me, but maybe they’d start thinking about my kids.  It talked about where my kids went to school at the time, it talked about where my wife works, where my father-in-law lives, and where my parents were at.

There was another one that talked about threatening to gut my wife like a deer.  My kids were targeted on Facebook.  There were just all sorts of horrible things.  Now I counter to that and this is one of the positives I mentioned in that book Unintimidated is that for every one of those, there were eight or nine or ten more others who — when I would go out around the state to farms and factories and small businesses, who literally come off the line and would tell me that they and their families were praying for us.  So that’s what sustained us throughout it all.

Well, people appreciate courage.  Thank you.  There are a lot of Republicans across the country who appreciate what you did, too.  I think you set an example for a lot of people.  Now Barack Obama is simply not enforcing the immigration laws we have in place today.  That is more of a national issue than a Wisconsin issue, but realistically does it make sense to come up with some sort of grand deal where we change legal status for illegal immigrants in return for tougher laws when the laws we already have are being ignored?

No, I don’t think it makes sense to have a grand compromise.  I think part of the problem is that right now in America we don’t have a legal immigration system that works. I mean that from two different standpoints — not only from the standpoint of enforcing the law against folks who are in this country from any other place.   So many people focus in on Mexico, but it could be Germany, it could be Australia, it could be Canada, it could be anywhere, but the federal government doesn’t enforce the laws that are in place. They’re just kind of overlooking them.

At the same time the federal government is also failing in the sense that they don’t have a legal system that works appropriately — meaning that people who want to come to this country, they want to live the American dream.  They want to work hard, they want to do the same sort of things that our ancestors and so many others before them came into this country for — to work hard with self-determination.  You know, what’s great about America is we’re one of the few countries left in the world where you can.  It doesn’t matter what class you were born into, it doesn’t matter what background your parents had; in America anyone has the opportunity to do just about anything they want.  The opportunity is equal.  The outcome is up to the individual and that should be an aspiration we should encourage.

The problem is, again, with the federal government, is they have such a horrible bureaucratic system that someone that wants to come to this country legally finds tremendous barriers and time constraints to do that. My sense is that instead of spending all this time trying to work out some grand compromise or a deal, we should fix the legal immigration system.  Enforce the laws so that people that are coming here legally, make a process that is a reasonable and timely process so that if people want to come here, if they want to come here for all the right reasons, if they want to be makers, not takers, we should find a way to get them into the country just like somebody – today’s Americans and their ancestors did for generations before.

But it is so typical of Washington that they spend all their time and focus about people who are already here illegally instead of saying maybe we should fix the very system itself – the legal system that isn’t working today.

 Tell us a little bit about what you’ve been doing in your state to deal with Obamacare.  You’ve done something very innovative there.  Let us know what you think of the program as a whole and give a little advice to Republicans in D.C.  Should they insist on full repeal?  Should they go some other direction?  What do you think, Scott?

 I campaigned both in 2010 and again even in my recall against Obamacare.  I don’t think the government should play a direct role, not only at the federal level, but even at the state level. I think individuals and families should be making those decisions and so ultimately my goal is to get to a patient-centered system where the government doesn’t play a direct role in terms of defining benefits or things of that nature. Consumers, patients get to drive that.

 What we’ve done to fight it though is from day one.  The first day I took office, January 3, 2011, I gave our Attorney General the authorization to join the federal lawsuit.  I rejected a state exchange or a partnership and that looks like a wise decision every day since we see the mess with the Obamacare rollout.  I did not take the Medicaid expansion for two reasons.  One, I think it will expose taxpayers in my state and other states to tremendous unforeseen costs when the federal government reneges as they have so many times before the reimbursement — but more importantly, my objection is I don’t think adding more people to Medicaid is of itself a good thing. My goal is the opposite.  I want to transition people from government dependence to true independence.  I’m still optimistic enough to believe that most people in America, including some who are on assistance today, don’t want to be.  They understand that the American Dream is not fulfilled by the mighty hand of the government.

It’s empowered by giving people the freedom and the dignity that comes from work, the ability to control their own destiny and that ultimately leads to more freedom and prosperity.  What we’re doing in the meantime until the federal government makes those sorts of changes is something kind of creative.  We did not take the Medicaid expansion and yet we didn’t just say no to it either.  We found a way, thanks to the only part of the Supreme Court decision I like, which freed the states up to do what they want with the Medicaid is for the first time in our state’s history, everyone living in poverty will be covered by Medicaid.

Maybe I’m old school, but I always thought that Medicaid was supposed to be for the poor — and so we cover people with poverty, many of whom even under a previous Democratic governor were on a waiting list.  Everyone living above poverty will now be transitioned into the marketplace with the idea being that long-term my goal is to get these people off the government and transition them off of government assistance and get them comfortable being in the marketplace and the workplace.  So we have fewer uninsured, everyone living in poverty covered, those living above poverty transitioning and we don’t expose the people of our state to the higher costs that I think other states are going to face because of the Medicaid expansion.

But long-term for the last part of your question: what should they do in Washington?   Two quick things: one, I don’t think any Republican should relish the failure of Obamacare.  The failure has left a lot of people kind of in no man’s land slipping between the cracks.  I think instead of relishing the failure that many of us predicted, what we should be doing is sharing in the frustration that most Americans have with it and then showing them that we’ve got a positive, viable alternative that’s not based on more government.  It’s based on putting patients in charge, giving them the ability to purchase plans across state lines, giving them the ability to have the same tax benefits whether they buy their health insurance through their employer, whether they buy it in the market, whether they go off and do something like a health savings account.  The government shouldn’t be treating them differently when it comes to tax advantages.  Health care should be something that we control, not something the government controls.

So you think we should repeal and replace it with a patient-centered system?

Absolutely, yes.  To be specific, I think you’ve got to get rid of everything with Obamacare.  The whole thing is a mess and I think for the handful of pundits that say, well, what about this, that, or whatever, there are little tiny components like you said, like opening up the access over state lines or things like that, that could be done — but I think it should be very limited and I’m not an advocate of going back to the old system.  I think you repeal it and go the opposite direction.  I think the old system was too bureaucratic and had too much in government intervention.

I think you make it as wide open as possible.  You give patients as many choices as possible and then you let people determine their future.  One of the examples I often give talking about healthcare is most Americans, probably like our family, know more about their cell phone coverage than they do about their health insurance.  I’ve got an 18 and 19-year old son and for years they’ve had cell phones.  I knew early on I had to get unlimited texting or I’d be in the poor house.  Yet most Americans don’t know much more than what their deductible is on their prescriptions or how much of a co-pay they have to pay for a doctor visit.  They have no idea what the true costs and implications are of their healthcare choices and so to me I think you go the opposite direction and you make it as transparent as possible.

You have patients in the driver’s seat and then I think all of us, myself as a consumer as well as everyone else, then we’re going to be more actively engaged — not just in what we do for healthcare but how we manage things like diabetes and high blood pressure and overall wellness.  All of those things are things that are going to be much different if the patient is in charge and not the government and not even some of the private sector bureaucracy, but the patient.

 In your book you encourage Republicans to do something important that the GOP, much to its detriment, has gotten out of the habit of doing.  You said we should champion the vulnerable.  Talk a little bit about that, talk about why that’s important for Republicans to do.

 Yeah, one of the things that frustrates me so much in the Presidential election is I thought there was a tremendous lost opportunity — and obviously the clearest example of that was when Republican nominees talked about the 47% and also in a similar conversation talked about not worrying about the poor because the poor had a safety net.  That really, truly doesn’t match where I’m at.  I don’t think it matches with people like Ronald Reagan who was a great inspiration for me as a kid.  I went back in the book and talked about how Reagan in 1980 at the National Convention in Detroit in his acceptance speech talked about things like saying if you’re living in poverty, we want to lift you out.  If you’re living in despair, we want to be hope, but that hope isn’t based on more government.  It’s based on empowering people with the skills and the talents and the abilities that they need to go out and control their own lives and so I think the message is really simple, I believe, and I think this was the missed opportunity.  I believe the president and his allies in Washington in particular measure success in government by how many people are dependent on government, by how many people are on Medicaid, by how many people are on food stamps, by how many people are on unemployment.  That’s why they want to extend unemployment benefits.  They want more people signed up, more people dependent.  I think we as Republicans should measure success by just the opposite — by how many people are no longer dependent on the government, not because we’ve got to be careful to articulate this correctly, not because we don’t care about people or because we want to push people out to the streets, but because we understand that true freedom and prosperity don’t come from the mighty hand of the government.  It comes from empowering the people to control their own lives and their own destiny.  One example that I give in the book that I’ve talked about before is we made a change in food stamps that said if you want to get food stamps, if you don’t have kids, you’re an adult in our state and you want to get food stamps, you’ve either got to be working part-time or you’ve got to be in one of my employment training programs, and I said it’s simple.


I don’t want to make it harder to get government assistance.  I want to make it easier to get a job and we’ve got to show people.  I think any of us who either have our own households or who have friends who have sons or daughters who are in their 20’s, they’re at college and at some point you say to your son or daughter eventually in their best interest, “Hey, it’s time to move out of the house.  It’s time to get your own job and your own place.”  That’s not about being heartless and cold.  That’s just the opposite.  It’s about you love your kids so much you want to get them out and help them get on their own two feet so they can have the pride that comes from work in controlling their own destiny.

….And that’s the message that we’ve got to get out to people — that the Left, they want you under their thumb.  They want to control you.  They want to control your lives.  They want you to be dependent on the government.  We should say we’re the ones, not only for the poor, but for young people coming out of college, for working class families, for immigrants, for others out there.  We should say we are the ones who empower the American Dream.  We’re the ones who say you can do and be anything you want, but it’s because we empower you with the ability and the platform to do that.  Then it’s up to you to make that happen.  The other side tells you they want to help you, but in the end they want to keep you limited in how far you can grow.

We want to make sure everyone’s a part of the recovery.  We’re not going to leave anybody behind, but we’re going to do it by empowering people to control their own lives and destiny.

Read the rest here.

UPDATE: The Soros media slaves on the Left are already salivating  about an apparent Walker 'gaffe' pointing out that he 'lied about voting for Reagan' because he was too young in 1980.

As John Hawkins points out, it was a transcription error. the real line was 'a vote for Reagan'...and he has the actual audio to prove it. Fascinating how these sycophants go absolutely berserk over what would have been a minor error even if it was true... while ignoring the outright serial lies of people like President Obama Mrs. Clinton and other figures in the current regime about much more serious issueslike IRS-gate,ObamaCare, Benghazi..th elist goes on and on.

No shame, and certainly no decency to be found among the Soros media bunch and their comrades -in-arms, that's for sure.

Here's The Full Charlie Rose Interview With Syria's Basher Assad

Part 1-8, September, 2013. English with Arabic subtitles. Well worth watching.

Who does Assad's voice remind you of?

Obama's Presidential Style: 'That's Somebody Else's Job'

 

President Obama recently did an interview with ex-Clintonista George Stephanopoulos that was unintentionally revealing.

Here are a few of the more interesting exchanges:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
Mr. President, thank you for doing this.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
It’s great to be here.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
So, you’ve done all meetings on Capitol Hill, but I’m trying to figure out where this all goes. Because the– the Republican leader is still saying no revenues in any kind of a deal. I assume your bottom line is that any deal has to include revenues.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Right.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
So, is your strategy to break them or to go around them? What is it?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
I don’t think it’s to break or go around them. I think it is to identify– members, particularly in the Senate, but I think also in the House, who are just tired of havin’ the same argument over and over again. And– what I call the common-sense caucus, which says– we can do sensible deficit reduction with a combination of entitlement reform, some judicious spending cuts, closing some tax loopholes that nobody really defends on their own.

I mean, you don’t hear people say, “Man, that’s a great tax loophole– that we should keep.” And if we do all those things, then instead of arbitrary cuts that hurt our economy, we can actually put in place– a growth strategy that creates jobs and protects the middle class and helps them thrive and grow. And– and that’s what I’ve been talking about–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
But that–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
–for the last two years.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
–that common-sense caucus on the Republican side, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, other Senate Republicans–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Right. Yeah. Yeah.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
–say they’re gonna need to see a lot more entitlement reform from you before they can sign onto any new revenues, like putting– raising the Medicare eligibility age back on the table. Is that back on the table?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Well, one of things that– you know, I’ve discovered in some of these dinners, which has been– useful, is that people don’t always know what I’ve actually proposed. And– it’s a lot easier to have a conversation when there’s something specific. So– I’ve said, “Here– this may not have gotten reported on. Maybe you guys didn’t see it in your office. But here are the things we’re looking to do.”

And, you know, there’s a finite number of changes that could be made to deal with our deficit. And I say, you know, “Do you guys like this? Do you not like that? What is it that you wanna do? Why don’t you guys specifically tell me?” And through that process, potentially– you may see emerging– some consensus. Now–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
But even the ones who’ve seen your plans say they need to see more.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Well– I understand. Which is why, at some point, I think I take myself out of this. Right now, what I’m trying to do is create an atmosphere where Democrats and Republicans can go ahead, get together, and try to get something done. And, y– you know– I think what’s important to recognize is that– we’ve already cut– $2.5– $2.7 trillion out of the deficit. If the sequester stays in, you’ve got over $3.5 trillion of deficit reduction already.

And, so, we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place. The question is, can we do it smarter, can we do it better? And– you know, what I’m saying to them is I am prepared to do some tough stuff. Neither side’s gonna get 100%. That’s what the American people are lookin’ for. That’s what’s gonna be good for jobs. That’s what’s gonna be good for growth.


The President continues:

But ultimately, it may be that– the differences are just– too wide. It may be that ideologically, if their position is, “We can’t do any revenue,” or, “We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid,” if that’s the position, then we’re probably not gonna be able to get a deal.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
Where–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
That won’t– that won’t create a crisis. It just means that we will have missed an opportunity. I think that opportunity is there and I’m gonna– make sure that they know that I’m prepared to– work with them. But ultimately, it may be better if some Democratic and Republican Senators work together. We can–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
So, you might poison the well if you put forward these ideas

(OVERTALK)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
You know –I think whatever I’m for, it’s very hard for a Republican to also be for. I think they always have to be a little bit– you know, maintain some distance.

Of, course, what President Obama fails to mention is that he's added 6 trillion in new debt in just four years - not counting the huge cost of ObamaCare, which the Congressional Budget Office now says could add another 3-5 trillion. And the president also isn't counting the cost of debt service, AKA interest charges on all this borrowed money.

Right now, our government debt is 67.7 percent of GDP as of last year and headed upwards. As a comparison, Spain, who needed huge bailouts by the EU just to keep going has a debt level at 84.1 percent of its GDP including the money from the bailouts. Given that we're spending a lot more than the Spaniards, we'll be there soon enough...and who's going to bail Uncle Sam out?

And this clueless president says we don't have a debt crisis? Whom does he think he's kidding?

It's also revealing to examine what President Obama sees as his job description 'Right now, what I’m trying to do is create an atmosphere where Democrats and Republicans can go ahead, get together, and try to get something done.'

What the @###@! is he? A wedding planner? He was elected to govern. That means you make decisions and advance policy. That means you put your proposals on the table, negotiate with the opposition party and come up with a consensus. You, not unnamed Democrats and Republicans. Instead, what we've have are vague proposals and a president who says he's going to 'take myself out of this.'

What exactly are we paying him to do? Now his job self-description is golfing and 'maintaining distance'?

And as for 'growth' and jobs..it's the Obama Administration's policies that have resulted in the U.S. economy actually contracting in real terms. The only part of the economy that's growing is government.

Over regulation, a trillion dollar 'stimulus' that created none of those shovel ready jobs the president claimed were just waiting, ObamaCare, the war on oil and coal, the thumbs down on the Keystone Pipeline, that's what's killed jobs and growth. And it's beginning to become noticeable, even though the media continues to circle the wagons around the president.

Let's move on to see how President Obama handles foreign policy:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
Let me ask you about North Korea. Seen a lotta belligerent behavior from the–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Yeah. Yeah.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:–regime in recent days. Canceled the 1953 armistice. And your director of national intelligence James Clapper told Capitol Hill today for the first time did North Korea and nuclear weapons and missiles pose a serious threat to the United States. So, can North Korea now make good on its threat to hit the United States?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
They– they probably can’t, but we don’t like margin of error, right, when it comes to–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
It’s that close?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Well, and I don’t th– it’s not that close. But what is true is, is they’ve had nuclear weapons since well before I came into office. What’s also true is missile technology improves and their missile technology has improved. Now, what we’ve done is we’ve made sure that we’ve got defensive measures to prevent– any attacks on the homeland. And we’re not anticipating any of that. But we’ve seen outta the North Koreans is they go through these periodic spasms of– of provocative behavior.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
Is this one more serious?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Well– I don’t necessarily think it’s different in kind. They’ve all been serious. Because when you’re talking about a regime that– is oppressive towards its people, is belligerent– has shown itself to sometimes miscalculate and do things that are very dangerous– that’s always a problem. And, so, we’ve s– what we’ve done is organized the world community to strengthen sanctions, to sink– strengthen unilateral sanctions on– North Korea.

I think what’s most promising is we’re startin’ to see the Chinese, who historically have– tolerated misbehavior on the part of the North Koreans because they’re worried about– regime collapse and how that could spill over to them. You’re startin’ to see them recalculate and say, “You know what? This is startin’ to get outta hand.” And, so, we may slowly be in a position where we’re able to force– a recalculation on the part of North Koreans about what’s gonna be–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
Is there anything more you–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
–good for them and not –

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
–can be doing directly? The last American to see Kim Jong Un, Dennis Rodman. I had (LAUGH) the pleasure of talking to him a couple weeks ago–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Yeah, I noticed that

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
–a little crazy. But he did say that Kim Jong Un said, “Boy, I want the president to call me.” Back in 2007, you were for a direct–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Right.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
–talk, you said you were for with the North Koreans. Would it make any sense now, one? If not, why not?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
You– you– you know, I think that– you always wanna create the conditions where if you have a conversation, it’s actually useful. And, you know, we’re not the only players in this. Obviously, the South Koreans– the Chinese– all the six-party talk players– need to be involved in how you resolve this.

And, you know, we communicate with the North Koreans. They know– what our bottom lines are. What we’ve said is we want a denuclearized peninsula. You know, we’ve gotta stop with these kinds of provocative threats. And we’re prepared to work with them where they could break their isolation and– rejoin the–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
What do you need to see first?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
–international community. Well– I mean, I think there are a lot of things. But they could start by– ending nuclear testing. They could start by ending some of this missile testing. There are– a whole s– battery of– of confidence-building measures that they could engage in. And I think all the countries involved have said, “We would reciprocate if we saw– the– any kind of responsible behavior from the North Koreans. We have not seen it yet.” That doesn’t mean that– they may not– change their calculations.

One thing we’ve tried to do is to make sure that we’re not gonna reward bad behavior. There previously have been patterns where, you know, they bang the spoon on the table and then suddenly they get food aid. Or– they get other concessions. And then they come back to the table and negotiate a little bit, and then if they get bored they start– provocative actions again. We’ve broken that pattern. Now, what we need to see is– is whether they’re willin’ to come– in a serious way to negotiate these issues.

They probably can't hit the U.S.? 'I don't think so?'  Isn't it the president's job to know these things?

Notice that the first place he goes is to blame someone else - "they've had nuclear weapons since before I came into office."

So what? Wasn't he elected to solve problems like a threat from some third rate dictator armed with nukes? And notice how he stutters and waffles when Stephanopoulos asks him whether he's actually followed up with the direct talks the Norks requested?

Ummm, no. This president wants ' the international community' to do it. As always, he shifts the heavy work on to somebody else.

He does the same thing when it comes to anything else...just look:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
Let me stay in the region. Because James Clapper also today talked about cyber attacks. Put–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Yeah. Right.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
–that at the top of his list of threats to the United States. A couple weeks ago– the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee– Mike Rogers, said that we are at war with China. Because of their cyber espionage, they’re winning that war. And their government and military is behind it. Do you believe that?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Well, I think– you al– always have to be careful war analogies. Because, you know, there’s a big difference between– them engaging in cyber espionage or cyber attacks and– obviously– a hot war. What– is absolutely true– is that we have seen– a steady ramping up of cyber security threats. Some are state sponsored. Some are just sponsored by criminals. The–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
But some are state sponsored?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
Absolutely. And– and billions of dollars are lost to the consequences. You know, industrial secrets are stolen. Our companies are put into competitive disadvantage. You know, there are disruptions to our systems– that, you know, involve everything from our financial systems to some of our infrastructure.

And this is why I’ve taken some very aggressive executive actions. But we need Congress to act. We’ve put before Congress what exactly we need that will protect people’s privacy and civil liberties, but will also make sure that our overall system, both public and private, are protected from these kinds of attacks.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
But it sounds like–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
So far, Con–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:
–China to back down.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
–so far, Congress hasn’t acted yet.

Once again, it's always someone else's job, someone else's fault.if Stephanopoulos was an actual journalist, he would ask the president exactly what he'd requested of congress. What he'd hear if he did was a lot more stuttering...because this president hasn't actually asked congress to do anything about this. What we've seen is a couple a vague proposals lacking any significant details that were just thrown out there without any sense of urgency.

This president has no problems using executive orders to fund Hamas, unilaterally enforce the DREAM Act that even a democrat majority Congress wouldn't pass, unilaterally decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a hundred other things - and yet he sees a major national security threat to the U.S. and can't muster up one more?

Even with a sympathetic Stephanopoulos prompting him constantly during the interview and doing his best to cover for him, President Obama's lack of any sense of what a leader does  comes through.

As I've  mentioned before, in my home when my kids were quite small any unexplained mishap was credited to Not Me.

What we have here is President Not Me.That's who's running  things now, except he disclaims any responsibility for anything.

And that is simply disgraceful.

NBC's David Gregory - A Prime Example Of How Lefty Elites Think

,

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre appeared on NBC's Meet The Press yesterday, hosted by David Gregory. As you would expect, Gregory was nasty, rude and borderline hysterical toward LaPierre for actually insisting on defending the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

There's only one fact LaPierre got wrong, concerning school shooting in Israel. What you had was one horrific terrorist attack at a school in Ma'alot that killed 25 children and teachers who were taken hostage. After that, the Israelis became a lot more security conscious and simply allowed teachers, many of whom had served in the Idf and were in the reserve to bring their military weapons to school.

Among other fallacies, Gregory doesn't have a clue that magazines are incredibly easy to fabricate, so thinking that banning high capacity magazines is going to prevent another Sandy Hook is pure crack induced fantasy.

 But here's the real kicker. Gregory is a perfect example of exactly the kind of monied leftist elite who want other people disarmed and wants other people's children defenseless while he and his own children are protected by - wait for it - armed security guards.

Gregory's children attend the ultra elite Sidwell Friends school in DC. The school has a security department made up of at least 11 people, many of whom are police officers. In addition, since President Obama's two daughters go there as well, the Secret Service is in attendance.

Gregory, you see, has no need to carry a gun because he can afford to hire that out. When he's at work, NBC's private security protects him, his children are well guarded at their private school and I guarantee you that whatever tony security building, gated community or suburb he calls home is as well.He may even be a subscriber to an private armed response security company, the private 911 of the monied elite. What he objects to is a bunch of rubes in flyover country without his paycheck having the audacity to retain the ability to protect themselves and their families. They've lived in the bubble so long that they can barely even imagine how other people live, and they care much more about their agenda than they do about the lives of you, your property or you loved ones.

This is the argument about school choice all over again. The David Gregorys, the Diane Feinsteins and the Barack Obamas have their needs covered, many times at the public's expense. They recoil in horror at giving the peasants the choice to do the same.

Palin Warns: Obama Camp Will Not Go Down Without Swinging; Will Pull Something

Wise words from Governor Palin, being interviewed by Sean Hannity after tonight's debate:

"Now we have to be aware in the next couple debates also if Mitt Romney continues to gain and gain and gain just by being truthful and experienced and intelligent, that doing a good job as a presidential candidate, these guys in the Obama camp, they're not going go down without swinging. They're going pull something," former Governor Sarah Palin warned after tonight's debate.

"And the American public, with the media's help, these lapdogs in the media, kind of going along with what Obama and his people want to do to shake some things up if Mitt Romney continues to do so well. The American public just needs to be aware that they've got to do their own home work, don't rely on the shelter of the media, and just be aware something could be pulled here to turn things around if Mitt Romney continues to gain so much ground."

I personally put the odds on something crooked, sleazy or downright fraudulent coming out of the Obama camp if he's down in the polls in late October and looks like he's losing at no less than 50%..and I'm being conservative here.

Obama Campaign Adviser Questioned: 'President Has Time for Whoopi Goldberg But Not World Leaders?'

This is absolutely hysterical.

 FOX News's Chris Wallace ( a registered Democrat, by the way) senior Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs interviewed senior Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs a question or two about how President Obama is using his time.Watch Gibbsy stutter and shake. Here's a transcripit:

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I want to go back to the UN though and New York this week. You say that he’s got schedules, that foreign leaders have schedules. But the President has blocked out time to appear on The View on Tuesday. So, he has time for Whoopi Goldberg but he doesn’t have time for world leaders?

ROBERT GIBBS, OBAMA SENIOR CAMPAIGN ADVISER: No, Chris. Look, the President is going to be actively involved at the UN General Assembly.

WALLACE: He’s not meeting with any private leaders. He's giving a speech.

GIBBS: Chris, they have telephones in the White House. Last week, he talked to the President of Egypt. He talked to the leader in Libya. We don't need a meeting in Washington just to confer with leaders. We’ve got a strong...

 WALLACE: But he does need the time to be on The View?

GIBBS: We have a strong diplomatic – I’m sure if he was doing an interview with you on Fox News, you’d have no problem with that.

WALLACE: Well, he hasn't, but that’s not the point.

GIBBS: I’m sure that’s not the point. No, look Chris, he’s got a strong schedule. He’s actively involved.

WALLACE: You don't have a problem with the fact that he’s not meeting with any world leaders, but he’s going to appear on The View?

GIBBS: I have no problem with that, because, Chris, you’re the President of the United States every minute of every day.

Yep. Time for Whoop Whoop, Letterman and a costumed pirate, hey,  that's covered. Time to meet with world leaders?  Ummm, well, no.

Not Pretty: Sen.Schumer Forced To Deal With The Democrat's Anti-Israel Stance

This is, in a word, embarrassing.

Whatever else one might say about Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) he has always been a reliable pro-Israel voice in Congress. Here's on CBS news, he's confronted by questions about exactly why the Democrats removed virtually all the pro-Israel language from the new 2012 Democrat Party platform that was in the 2008 platform...and in particular, the language about Jerusalem being Israel's undivided capital.

At first, Schumer tries to spin his way out of it, saying that most Democrats hold that position but the interviewers aren't deterred and remind him that this isn't what the party platform says.He responds by saying that an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capitol is his position and has been for over twenty years, which is true, but of course doesn't answer the question in the slightest.

As a final shot, the interviewers asked him if he knows what President Obama's position on the issue is, and Schumer was forced to reply that he didn't know.

Actually, I'd bet my dollar to your dime that Senator Schumer, a well connected and important party member knows exactly what President Barack Obama's position is.

I would also bet money that Senator Schumer did his best to try and get the platform language on Israel modified and was out muscled by the president and his circle of advisers. And in fact, one of my sources told me that's exactly what happened.

You might recall that at the height of the Obama Administration's anti-Israel frenzy, it was Senator Schumer who unsuccessfully tried to moderate the Obama Administration's position, even to the point of breaking with the president publicly. Things have only gone from bad to worse in the two years since then.

The above video is poignant,because it shows a man trying to square the circle and defend the indefensible when he knows its impossible. Breaking with President Obama publicly over Israel is something he feels he can't do as a loyal party member with a tough election coming up, but to keep silent means betraying principles he's held all through his political life.

Deep inside, Senator Schumer knows that while individual Democrats like himself might have a different view, the party's leadership is in control of the anti-Israel left, and will be for some time regardless of whether Barack Obama is re-elected. Especially if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden is the nominee in 2016.

Like many others before him, Senator Schumer is faced with the fact that the party he's been loyal to all his life has moved beyond him and has left him behind.

Actually, that happened a long time ago, but recent events have simply made it more obvious and impossible to ignore.

Weekend Monkey's Real Banana - An Exclusive Interview With Elizabeth Warren

Hideyho, primates! I'm here live at the Democrats national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, and have I got a treat for you...an interview with none other than my old Pal Elizabeth Warren, the next Senator from the state of Massachusetts!

EW: Hello Monkey! I remember you trolling students for votes at Harvard...and the after party! No primate left behind! We sure drank a lot that night ( giggles).

WM: Yup! The absolute ultimate in diversity, just like I told you then. Great days, great days.So, not only are you running for the Senate in Massachusetts, but you have a star speaking role at this convention.

EW: Uh huh. Wednesday night,prime time.Introducing Bill Clinton.

WM: Ain't gonna miss it, my progressive cupcake. Just be careful never to let Bill Clinton get behind you or get you alone in a room.

EW: He pulls something out of his pants and asks me to kiss it, he's gonna think I'm Jewish instead of Native American, if you get my drift...

WM: Hee hee! That's my lil' class warrior! OK, level with me. You had that great schtick, about how nobody in America got rich by themselves, and then Obama 'borrowed' it, botched it and turned it into a ReThug rallying cry. That has to make you a little bit peeved, right?

EW: Well, no Monkey, to be honest. I mean yeah, he did kind of give the Repubs a feed line instead of being nuanced like I was, but we're both on the same end of the canoe, if you get my meaning. Besides, us Native Americans are used to having stuff stolen from us by the palefaces. I mean, look at the Pilgrims and Orville Redenbacher's popcorn.

WM: Forget about the popcorn, look at Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina and Georgia. That Trail of Tears thing, is it really true one of your ancestors was a part of sending the Cherokees to Oklahoma?

EW: No comment on that Monkey. After all, I can't be expected to account for all my ancestors, can I?

WM: Nah, of course not. But that brings us to another subject, the controversy over your Cherokee heritage that surfaced during the Senate campaign...is it true you were listing yourself as a minority on that university directory of law professors thingy?

EW: Hey, it's just like I said..I just wanted to y'know, meet some nice people, make a few friends, maybe find someone special who, y'know, understands me, somebody to do things with after a week of grinding out Marxist dialectic on campus...nothing more than that. Is that so bad? All the Fake-A-Hontus stuff, it's all nothing but lies, all lies, Monkey! Just designed to try and prop up a corrupt, right winger Republican tool who deserves to have a tommyhawker thingey or whatchamacallit thrown at him.

WM: Actually, as I recall, he's pretty liberal and votes a lot with Democrats...

EW: NOT Liberal enough for the people of Massachusetts, Monkey..with that stupid pick up truck and those chiseled abs and boyish good looks..just sickening.I'm surprised he hasn't tried to do a strip tease in front of some of those voters!

WM: You could do that, you know.Maybe attract some of those crossover male voters..

EW: Don't think I haven't considered it.I can't believe the polls still show us neck and neck.

WM: But you're gonna win, right?

EW: I can depend on the sound judgment and the common sense of the good people of Massachusetts for that, Monkey. Remember, we're talking about the people who elected Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and Barney Frank to office and kept them there for years!

WM: Yeah, I think you got a point there sweetums. You can always depend on Massachusetts. Sooooo...what will you say to the American people Wednesday night?

EW: (Giggles) Aw c'mon Monkey. A girl has to have some secrets.

WM: C'mon Babe, just a little preview, for my readers...

EW: OK, OK. It'll just be the usual, y'know. Aside from playing up Bill Clinton, it'll be y'know, Romney is Satan, Paul Ryan is Hitler, how they hate women, minorities, gays, that kind of thing.And maybe I'll try do a little damage control on my theme on how nobody in America got rich by themselves,kind of make up for President Obama's misstep.

WM: I think that's an outstanding idea, and I know you'll do it so well. And I have another idea, one that I think will make it go over even better.

EW: What?

WM: Honor your Native American heritage and spit in the eyes of your unworthy detractors by doing the speech in Indian dress.

EW: You think so Monkey? Really?

WM: Just try stuff this on.













EW: Whaddya think?

WM: I think it's you, Elizabeth. And it brings out those high cheekbones of yours I've always liked.Not to mention those baby blue eyes of yours.

EW: Ooh, Monkey. I always feel so much better after talking to you! Hey you know...after I finish the speech, maybe we could meet up, you know, have a few drinks, talk about old times? I could, I could umm, meet you in the bar over at the Ballantyne Hotel, I'm staying there...

WM: The Ballantyne??? Pretty fancy digs for a class warrior, don't you think?

EW: Hey the DNC is paying, OK? Even the bar tab's on expense account. But anyway, would you come, Monkey? I'd wear the buckskin, the headdress and the feathers for you..

WM: Now your talking my language, sweetcakes. Go out there, knock 'em dead and we'll have our own private powwow at the Ballantyne.

EW: Will do, Monkey!

WM: Until then my fair Indian maiden...or should I say, Senator! Thanks for dropping by.

EW: Anytime Monkey.

WM: Well there you have it primates! This is Weekend Monkey, signing off until next time..


Weekend Monkey was a Democratic candidate for president in 2008 and is JoshuaPundit's political Guru. He can be reached at wendmonkey@yahoo.com

Romney And Ryan Hit Back At Obama's Claim They Want To Destroy Medicare On '60 Minutes'

Amid a very busy day, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan sat down with Bob Schieffer of CBs' '60 Minutes' to hit back at the Obama Administration's falsehood that they plan to destroy Medicare:

"There's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare," Romney said.

"What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it's there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, "We're going to give you a bigger choice." In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That's how we make Medicare work down the road."

Ryan added, "My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida. Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they've organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms. That have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late '90s."

This is just a clip, so I'm not sure is they mentioned the Obama Administration's destroying Medicare Advantage, a program 12 million seniors depend on. Or the rationing of cancer drugs. Or the death panels - aka 'Independent Medical Advisory Boards' that will ration care to seniors...even Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama's personal choice to run Medicare and Medicaid is an advocate of that and admits it's one of ObamaCare's aims...as did Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the president's chief healthcare advisors.

These points need to be stressed again and again. Romney/Ryan will work to save Medicare. President Obama wants to destroy it.

An Interesting Romney Interview With Business Week

In which Governor Romney talks,among other things, about his approach to the economy, job creation, his time at Bain Capital, his background and yes, why he feels he doesn't need to release more than two years worth of tax returns. This is exactly the sort of stuff he needs to be telling the American people. I've emphasized a few things. Here's a slice:

Much of the case you make to voters is that you’re a successful entrepreneur and a successful executive, and thus you’ll make a successful president. Why were you so successful as a businessman?
Well, I had the privilege of growing up in a home with a Dad that was a leader. And because I was the baby of the family, he was kind enough to take me along with him and I got a chance to see real leadership in action. I watched him at American Motors as he interacted with not only executives, but workers there. I remember going to Milwaukee as he addressed UAW employees at the Milwaukee stadium and described to them the new profit-sharing program that he and the head of the UAW had put in place. I later saw him work on policy that related to the state of Michigan, particularly its education system. He also helped to create a new constitution for Michigan. I would attend the meetings where he interacted with people of various backgrounds to find solutions and ultimately make changes. So I learned something about leadership from a man who was an extraordinary leader.

I also had the occasion to go to work in a business, a consulting firm which provided advice to businesses that faced challenges of various kinds. I learned through that process, through the people who taught me in the consulting firm as well as the people I learned from who were clients. Ultimately, I was able to be the leader of that company and led it through a challenging turnaround. I also had the occasion of starting up a business and saw it become one of the world’s leaders. And then, of course, I became the head of the [Salt Lake City] Olympics and with a great team helped turn it around. And finally, served as the governor of a state and found that the leadership principles I’d applied in business and in the not-for-profit world applied extraordinarily well in government as well.

What was the best part of working at Bain? The thing that got you excited to get to the office each morning?
I’m not sure people would think of me in this light, but frankly what I enjoyed most about Bain & Company, the consulting firm, was the analytical process of solving tough problems. If a client invites you in and is ready to pay a lot of money for your counsel, it is not because you know their business better than they do. Of course, they know their business better than I ever would. But they’re looking for someone to understand their business challenges in a new light. And that presents an analytical challenge which is steep and exciting. And I love the thinking and the analyzing as much as anything. I also enjoyed working with a team of people to arrive at ideas and solutions, and also to see ideas and solutions implemented. The experience at Bain Capital was similarly analytical, to decide which business ideas really had economic merit and which did not. And then to do your best to make sure that the team was in place to execute its vision.

When you look at it now, does that photo of you and your Bain colleagues posing with money in your pinstripe suits make you laugh or make you cringe?
Oh, that was a moment of humor as we had just done what we thought was impossible. We had raised $37 million from other people and institutions who entrusted us with their funds, and we thought it was a miracle that our group had been able to be so successful in fundraising. And ultimately we were able to yield for them a very attractive return by such investments as Staples, which was in our very first fund.

So it’s a happy memory.
We had a great group of people, each one of whom I think of fondly.

On the subject of leadership, why does Mormonism produce such a disproportionate number of political and business leaders?
I don’t know that I have an answer for you on that. I believe that people of faith by and large have a great interest in the institution of family and that a family is a great place to learn leadership skills. I’m sure I benefited by having a Mom and Dad, both of whom were actively involved in the community and in various enterprises. And by watching them interact with other people, I learned the kinds of lessons which serve me well. I presume that’s true for people of faith, if their faith, like mine, draws you to your family.

Great executives often say that early failure is essential to their eventual success. Aside from not winning a Senate seat in 1994, your record seems almost unblemished. Have you ever massively, embarrassingly failed at anything?
Well, I can say that the investments we made at Bain Capital did not all succeed. There were occasions when after long study and analysis, we concluded that the idea was good, that the management team was the right team. We invested in the business with hopes that it would grow and be successful, and despite our best preparation, we were disappointed with the result. And those results being typically: You lose your money and people can lose jobs. That’s always devastating. And I learned that not every business will be successful, even those that have been carefully selected and thoroughly evaluated.

Was that personally humbling?
I have never believed in my own ability to succeed at everything. I recognize I’m a human being like everybody else and I make mistakes, and fall short time and again. That being said, I will work as hard as I can to deliver the results which people entrust me to achieve.

You’ve signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to veto any tax increase as president. You’ve also pledged to get America on the road to a balanced budget. Since you’ve promised not to cut defense or Social Security, where specifically is the money going to come from?
Well, mathematically there are three ways of balancing a budget. One is by cutting spending; one is by growing the economy; and the last is by raising taxes.

The challenge of raising taxes is that it depresses growth. And so like a dog chasing its tail, you can’t get to a balanced budget by simply raising taxes. As a matter of fact, it is ultimately counterproductive. So my plan is based upon reducing spending and putting in place a program of policies that put more people to work and raise wages. So specifically, places that I would reduce spending: First, I will eliminate programs that are not absolutely essential. Obamacare is one of the easiest to eliminate from my standpoint and that saves approximately $100 billion a year. There are also programs I would return to the states where their growth can be managed and where they will be carried out with less fraud, inefficiency, and abuse. So for example, Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps, and other programs of that nature, I believe, can best be administered by the states. And finally I will cut the number of federal employees through attrition by at least 10 percent, and I will link their compensation with that which exists in the private sector. The plan that my team and I put in place achieves a balanced budget within eight years and does so without raising taxes.

One thing that distinguishes this recovery is that public sector jobs, government jobs, have already fallen by 650,000. Given the conservative goal of shrinking government, is this a positive development or a negative one?
Well, clearly you don’t like to hear [about] anyone losing a job. At the same time, government is the least productive—the federal government is the least productive of our economic sectors. The most productive is the private sector. The next most productive is the not-for-profit sector, then comes state and local governments, and finally the federal government. And so moving responsibilities from the federal government to the states or to the private sector will increase productivity. And higher productivity means higher wages for the American worker. All right? America is the highest productivity nation of major nations in the world, and that results in our having, for instance, an average compensation about 30 percent higher than the average compensation in Europe. A government that becomes more productive, that does more with less, is good for the earnings of the American worker, and ultimately it will mean that our taxes don’t have to go up, that small businesses will find it easier to start and grow, and we will be able to add more private sector jobs. Don’t forget! It’s the private sector jobs that pay for government workers. So if you have fewer government workers doing work more and more productively, that means private sector work will grow.

More at the link.I'd love to see Mitt Romney condense some of this into a 60-second ad.