Top 10 reasons not to re-elect Obama

Chuck Norris is a true American Patriot.

From: Human Events

By: Chuck Norris

On Feb. 2, 2009, President Barack Obama explained his chance to fix the economy to host Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today”: “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years. … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Here are the top 10 reasons I believe President Obama shouldn’t sit a single day beyond his one term in the Oval Office:

10) Obama’s economic actions have failed to lower the unemployment rate in the U.S. to less than 8 percent for the past 42 months, which is a record.

Nearly four years into his presidency, Obama’s economic progress was reported on Aug. 3 by Reuters: “Details of the household survey, from which the unemployment rate is drawn, gave a downbeat assessment of the labor market, with the share of the population that has a job falling to near cycle lows. In addition, the labor force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.7 percent last month from 63.8 percent. That is a sign of low confidence in the labor market. Data last week showed the economy grew at an annual pace of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, also far short of the 2.5 percent rate needed to keep the unemployment rate stable.”

9) The Obama administration’s out-of-control spending has led America to the economic brink and destroyed our country’s credit rating.

In 2009, Obama spoke out of one side of his mouth when giving financial advice to the people in New Hampshire: “When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash (in) Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

But he then spoke out of the other side of his mouth when he informed the American public that he was proposing a record-breaking $3.8 trillion budget for 2011, which equates to spending $7.3 million a minute. (The federal budget was only $1.9 trillion in 2001.)

Tragically, the president expects Americans to live one way financially (fiscally prudently) and the federal government to live another (extravagantly wildly). Not so surprisingly, the day after the president proposed his 2011 budget, Moody’s Investors Service announced that his fiscal policies “test the AAA boundaries” and pushed the U.S. government’s credit rating below those of Canada, Germany and even France.

8) Obama’s reckless spending and fiscal policies have added more to the national debt than most U.S. presidents combined — roughly $6 trillion in his first term in office (making the total debt nearly $16 trillion and, by White House projections alone, $21.3 trillion by the end of fiscal 2017, $25 trillion in 2021 and $25.9 trillion in 2022).

In 2007, when I began writing my New York Times best-seller “Black Belt Patriotism,” unemployment was less than 5 percent; the annual federal budget was about $2.9 trillion; the federal deficit was $161 billion; and the national debt was $9 trillion.

Today unemployment is stuck at 8.3 percent; the federal budget is $3.8 trillion; the national deficit is $1.3 trillion; and the national debt quickly is approaching a staggering $16 trillion.

And to add insult to injury, our vassalage to other countries deepens as they bankroll increasing amounts of U.S. debt. More than one-half of our public debt is held by private investors in foreign lands.

The International Business Times reported recently: “China overtook Japan as the largest holder of U.S. national debt in 2009. As of December (the most recent data available), it held about 23.1 percent, or $1.15 trillion, of all foreign investment in U.S. privately held federal debt, according to a newly released report by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. … Without monetary policy change, the CBO warned in its 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook on June 5, the U.S. federal debt could be twice the size of the U.S. gross domestic product by 2037.”

America, is that really the burden you want to place upon yourselves and your children?

7) Obama has detrimentally increased not only the costs of entitlements but also the dependency of citizens upon government subsidies rather than empower the people’s autonomy, responsibility and freedom.

Obama has been called the “food stamp president” because more federal grocery subsidies have been given out under his presidency than under most others combined. A record 44.7 million people, or 1 in 7 Americans, were on food stamps last year, up 33 percent from fiscal 2009. But far more than that, this president has radically increased government entitlement expansions.

The Heritage Foundation documented that Obama’s 2011 budget increased total welfare spending to $953 billion, a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in 2008. And over the next decade, welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office recently released updated figures that reveal how Obamacare will cost twice as much as the price tag first soft-lobbed at the American public, from $900 billion to $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.

6) Obama demeans private enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit — the very heart of America.

In 2009, right after taking office, President Obama emphatically stated that “only government” is our savior, and then he supported his socialistic platform through multiple company and corporate bailouts.

Recently, Obama reiterated his anti-individual and -capitalistic beliefs when he defined the “somebody” who’s responsible for the success of your business as being the federal government: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that; somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.” (Italics added.)

The Wall Street Journal even confessed that the president is “subordinating to government the individual enterprise and risk-taking that underlies prosperity.”

The New York Times reported, “With waning approval ratings and a stagnant economy, the possibility that Mr. Obama will not be re-elected has entered the political bloodstream.” It’s more than entered; it’s flowing strong.

5) President Obama has left the U.S. in a weaker and more disrespected position in the global community.

In 2009, President Obama began his presidency by humiliating our superpower nation and parading U.S. weaknesses and mistakes to the world on what many now call his “apology tour,” in which he embarked on global travel with his apologetic Top 10 decries of America, as detailed by the Heritage Foundation.

And is the U.S. better off among the nations?

The Washington Times report that, according to a poll by even two left-leaning groups, “A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than two years ago and believe President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security.”

In February 2012, Gallup reported that “Americans continue to express much greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction with the United States’ position in the world, and their views have improved little since hitting a low point in 2008.”

The Bipartisan Policy Center, including many of the original 9/11 Commission members, reported on national preparedness 10 years after those catastrophic terrorist attacks: “Our country is undoubtedly safer and more secure than it was a decade ago,” but “we fail to achieve the security we could or should have.” The report concluded that the federal government has failed to meet nine of the original 9/11 Commission’s 41 recommendations.

And what is President Obama’s response? He plans to initiate more than $500 billion in automatic cuts to the defense budget over a decade, starting next January. And Bloomberg Businessweek recently reported that Obama’s Democratic-controlled Senate voted to authorize another reduced Pentagon war and defense-related spending package.

4) Obama has broken or unfulfilled 324 campaign promises.

In the over 500 promises Obama made during his campaign and presidency, even the pro-Obama PolitiFact website and their Obamameter has rated his scorecard: 184 promises kept, 60 compromised, 71 broken, 61 stalled, 130 in the works and two not yet rated. What that verbiage means is that even according to the political left, Obama has fulfilled 184 promises and left 324 pledges broken and unfulfilled.

In 2010, feeling a bit defensive and maybe insecure, Obama fired back in anger to those who were accusing him of selling out by breaking so many of his campaign promises. Wielding his verbose verbal sword, the president retorted: “Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.”

“Not a single thing?”

That’s right — it’s 324 single things.

3) Through his presidency, President Obama is invoking and enabling a radically progressive secular state in the U.S.

In 2010, before his run for the presidency, Newt Gingrich stated on the tour for his insightful book “To Save America” that the Obama regime is “the most radical administration in America’s history. This is a secular socialist machine … deeply opposed to God being in public life, deeply opposed to religious values defining how we think about things … they clearly represent a value system that any reasonable person would call secular … on a scale that is the opposite of the Founding Fathers.”

When New York churches can no longer meet in public school settings, a federal court orders a Rhode Island public school to remove a prayer banner that has been posted for over five decades (and it complies), the federal government mandates Catholic institutions to cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization (at no cost to the patient), the U.S. Air Force removes “God” from the motto of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, the National Park Service omits the words “Laus Deo” (Latin, “Praise be to God”) from a Washington Monument capstone replica, atheists continue to contest “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, town councils can’t pray to start their meetings, evangelical pillars like Franklin Graham are subdued by gotcha-gangs in the mainstream media and cultural icons like football superstar Tim Tebow can’t even bow in silent prayer without criticism, etc., you can be assured that religious liberty (and Christianity, in particular) is under assault by secular progressives across America. And leading the national charge is none other than our own president, Barack Obama.

Is it any wonder Obama hasn’t fought for a single Christian cause or crisis in culture? Is it any surprise that his ethical campaign promises have fallen flat?

Remember when Obama promised during his 2008 campaign to “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.” He repeatedly declared that “an Obama administration is going to have the toughest ethics laws of any administration in history.”

Who are you kidding, Mr. President?

 In 2010, President Barack Obama confessed to ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” But what if Obama’s one term was not good but bad for the country?

2) Obama elevates himself above the U.S. Constitution — which contains the rulebook for his presidency — discarding and bypassing its principles and tenets.

What should be of grave concern to every American citizen is that President Obama has described the Constitution as “an imperfect document … a document that reflects some deep flaws … (and) an enormous blind spot.” He also said, “The Framers had that same blind spot.”

In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding, disavowing and disposing the Constitution from oversight and obedience in his administration and decisions, which he swore to uphold when sworn in to office. To add insult to injury, Obama places himself above the Constitution and those “blind Framers,” who just couldn’t see the big picture as he does today. After all, he’s the constitutional scholar, and the Framers were just, well, the creators of the document!

Today the Constitution tragically conforms to and serves the White House’s political whims, not vice versa. It’s time we stop that constitutional chaos and return to the founding principles, limited government and taxation, and freedoms of our early republic, whether we like them or not.

1) Four more years of President Obama will not only fundamentally transform but also unravel the very fabrics of our republic as our Founding Fathers knew it and as we know it.

On the eve of Obama’s election, he promised that he would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He wasn’t kidding. And he’s well on his way.

Imagine what four more years of Obama unleashed would bring, when there would be no re-election to face or consequences to bear.

Imagine no more.

WorldNetDaily’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Aaron Klein, has just published a groundbreaking expose and look into exactly what would happen in a second term with Obama. “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed,” WND explained, “is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major ‘progressive’ groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership — the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.”

From crumbling down American sovereignty by giving sway to U.N. rule and European socialism to clamping down on Second Amendment gun rights and passing the Freedom of Choice Act — the sweeping bill that would abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on federal funding of abortion — our republic would be in deep, deep trouble with Obama at the helm for four more years, because he would complete his fundamental transformation of the United States into a completely progressive European-socialist state.

Fellow citizens, America is out of time, out of money and indebted up to its ears, and our economy and unemployment rates are in the tank. We can’t afford a single day more of President Obama — especially knowing that every day, his administration adds $4,179,115,306 of debt (on top of the existing spending and debt).

The fiscal actions of Obama’s federal government are diametrically opposed to those of America’s founders, who adopted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson could have been writing to us today when he wrote in 1816 to Samuel Kercheval, roughly 40 years after the creation of the Declaration of Independence:

“We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

The Declaration of Independence could have been speaking about President Obama when it stated, “In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.”

God bless,
JohnnyD

 

How Stupid are You?

ENOUGH SAID!

God bless,
JohnnyD

Obama Administration to Defense Contractors: No Layoff Notices Until After Election, Please

From: Townhall Magazine

Kate Hicks - Web Editor, Townhall.com

n an effort to make the economy look a little rosier than it is, the Obama administration is basically coercing defense contractors so as to prevent news of layoffs hitting voters before the election. With sequestration about to result in some major cuts to the defense budget, contractors will lose government business -- and that means, employees will lose jobs. But to prevent poor numbers ahead of the November election, the Obama administration has made it very, well, fiscally unwise for companies to issue layoff notices too early.

The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.

But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”

“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”

The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.

Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.

Basically, the government has tried to circumvent some inevitable bad news in an attempt to give the economy an artificial cushion. It's worth noting the Obama administration's duplicity, as well as the terrible effects of its policies.

God bless,
JohnnyD

Is the Obama administration suppressing the military vote?

From: Human Events

By: Hope Hodge  - 9/27/2012 10:42 AM

Voter assistance programs for the military – specifically targeted for improvement with $75 million after low military turnout in 2008 – have been left to languish by the Obama administration and the result may be depressed military turnout. Again.

The situation is especially alarming for the Mitt Romney campaign, because polls have consistently shown that Romney’s support from military voters and their families exceeds that of Barack Obama’s support by double digits.

In other words, the less the administration puts a priority on military voter outreach, the more the president is helped in the election.

The situation is reaching a crisis point, as members of the military face deadlines for absentee ballots in some states in just a matter of days. So far, military ballot requests are at a dismal low.

In the pivotal swing state of Ohio, roughly 9,700 absentee ballots had been requested by military and overseas voters as of Sept. 22, compared with well over 32,000 in 2008 total ballots cast for those groups. In Virginia, another swing state with a significant military presence, the nearly 12,300 military and overseas ballots requested so far are something less than 30 percent of the more than 41,700 absentee military and overseas cast four years ago.

A survey released late last month by the Military Voter Protection Project showed that in eight military-dense states, early figures indicated the same trend. Ballot requests were down across the board by big margins.

“I think we’re going to see the lowest participation rates in more than a decade by military service members and their spouses,” said project CEO Eric Eversole. “We’re pushing as hard as we can to reach out to service members while there’s still time.”

These figures are particularly disconcerting in that the 2008 election already represented a low turnout in military voting, with about 54 percent of service members casting a ballot, compared with a 64 percent overall voter turnout.

Military voter outreach falls short

The problem was so acute that the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act was enacted in 2009 as part of the defense authorization bill to counter the apparent barriers to military voting. It required blank absentee ballots to be sent to service members who requested them at least 45 days before an election and called for the creation of dedicated voting assistance offices on every non-deployed military installation.

But while these offices were dutifully set up at many installations, early numbers suggest they are ineffective, and a recent Inspector General investigation found that representatives in those offices are, up to half the time, unreachable or unresponsive.

Of 229 installation voting assistance offices officials tried to contact by telephone, or email, more than 49 percent could not be reached at all. Furthermore, surveys conducted by the Defense department after the 2010 election, which showed the offices were effective in helping troops to vote, were found to be misleading because the surveys had a low response rate and respondents were largely self-selecting.

In a Sept. 13 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on military personnel to discuss the Inspector General report, Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) suggested the problem lay with Obama administration priorities.

“It seems to me that the DoD made sure that they got the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell surveys (determining the effects of a repeal) to every member of the military, to every spouse, to everybody that they were supposed to,” he said. “But when it comes to military voting, it seems that we’re not able to get the absentee ballots to our soldiers…it seems to me that there’s a different standard there when it comes to voting versus a survey that the DoD or the administration actually wanted a response to.”

Military vote leans Romney

The military vote, which has historically bent conservative, appears to be leaning even further to the right this election cycle. While Republican presidential candidate John McCain won the support of military voters by 10 percentage points in 2008, a Rasmussen poll conducted in July found that Romney leads Obama 59 percent to 35 percent for Obama among likely voters with military service. More recently, several Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist polls showed Romney with a lead of between 12 percentage points and 20 percentage points ahead of the president among veterans in the swing states of Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.

Anecdotal evidence shows that, whatever the reason, the message that troops should take time to exercise their constitutional right to vote is not always promoted or given priority among the fighting forces.

Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.), who also sat in on the recent panel on military voting, said his own experience as a senior officer in the U.S. Army reserves made him doubtful of how much attention voting assistance was given.

“I can say as someone who was deployed in 2008, the extent of my command emphasis was a notice that was posted on the unit bulletin board about where the voting office was and who the contact was,” he said. A Marine infantry sergeant stationed at Camp Lejeune, N.C., who asked not to be identified by name, said that he had received no information from his unit about voting. “The military never talks about voting, period,” he said. “It has not been something they’ve really talked about for most of us. I haven’t voted on anything since I joined.”

The local base paper did include a recent short story discussing the importance of voting and how to get help, but for those who work in the infantry, and, like this sergeant, are deployed or recently returned from a deployment, these messages may not be enough.

With little time left and roughly 480,000 absentee military votes (the number cast in 2008) at stake, Eversole said his organization’s immediate priority is to spread the word that troops should exercise their right to vote.

“From our organization’s perspective we’re going to continue pushing the best we can to get the word out,” he said. “Most Americans have family members serving. If they do, then they really need to emphasize to them that it’s not too late. It’s really important to reach out to them and let them know.”

In the long term, he said the laws in place to assist the troops were strong; they just needed to be enforced. “Our DoD needs to comply with federal law,” he said.

God bless,
JohnnyD

Open Letter to Swing State Voters: Presidential Election 2012

 From: Canada Free Press

Obama Lies

 

- Sher Zieve (Bio and Archives)  Friday, September 28, 2012  

 

Dear residents of the US “Swing States”:

Recently, the albeit strongly skewed-to-the-left polls in your States favor Dictator-in-Chief Obama. As this non-working-and-questionable-president of the United States’ abject and highly-visible destruction of massive portions of our nation’s small-to-medium-sized businesses (and the attendant millions of jobs losses for the middle class) and his restrictions and/or elimination of our ability to produce any energy (think coal) to sustain our lives have been put into place via his Draconian policies, I found this claim to be both bizarre and patently insane.

The question I continued to ask myself is “do the American people really and truly want to be slaves to Obama and his Marxist government? Why in the world would any sane human want that?” I could find no workable reason to explain anyone voting for and reelecting someone into office who has (in his first term) exhibited such perceptible disdain for the USA, its people and every one of its/our foundation principles—including our founding documents the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

With Fast & Furious, Obama’s DOJ has turned itself into the Northern branch of the Sinaloa drug cartel, while now suing private polling and other companies if they don’t tow the Obama party line or if they have the audacity to poll truthfully or speak out against him. Remember what happened to Gallup Polls and Gibson Guitars? Obama has been caught in one lie after another—most recently the foolishness about an oblique film causing the recent Middle East riots.

Note: Obama had Intel within 24 hours that the attacks in Libya and Egypt were caused by Al Qaeda…an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Yet, he and his bought-and-paid-for media continued (and still continue) to perpetuate the lie that the film was the catalyst. The Marxist-media truly are comprised of Marx’s (and now Obama‘s) “useful idiots.”

Meanwhile, Obama appointees who, along with their boss, break laws and commit one criminal act after another (most recently-notable is HHS Chief Kathleen Sebelius who has been caught numerous times breaking the Hatch Act and is still doing it by illegally campaigning for the usurper Obama) and experience no negative consequences. Folks, we’re now living under the Obama syndicate—aka “Mob.”

Obama and his cabal have all but destroyed the housing market and, despite the regime’s spinning of the truth, foreclosures are still at unprecedented in US history (with the possible exception of the first “great depression”) highs.

Obama has ended companies and jobs and made it virtually impossible for the middle class to find any viable work. He has sided with Islam against free speech (and freedom in general), Israel and the American people. Muslim Brotherhood members now occupy high-level positions in the US government—including national security. His “foreign policy” (which seems geared to total destruction of any and all burgeoning “democracies” by replacing the entire Middle East with Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Sharia Law) has exploded and continues to explode all over the Middle East and Asia with anti-American riots and assassinations of our citizens. Then, instead of addressing any of the catastrophic world events—which he has largely caused—Obama goes to fund-raising parties at the homes of his celebrity friends—including

Beyoncé and Jay-Z,—,visits the “ladies” on The View and yucks it up on Davey Letterman‘s show. All of this betrayal occurs at the hands of The Obama while he continues to invite actual terrorists to our White House!

To add insult to injury, Obama’s wholly-owned DOJ is now using its hammer and sickle against any and all who dare to oppose him. As previously mentioned, the first was Gallup Polls. This totalitarian suppressive action sent a noticeable chill through the polling community. The day after Gallup was sued by the DOJ (for not publishing the results the Obama syndicate wanted), all of the other pollsters who had been showing Romney ahead of Obama switched their polls to show Obama ahead. This is what happens when one appeases its oppressors. Weakness is rewarded by even more oppression.

Now, using samplings of anywhere between 9-13 points in favor of Democrats over Republicans and Independents, the polling companies are showing Dictator Obama “in the lead.” This type of criminal intimidation of private companies by a sitting “president” of the USA has not occurred before. Obama and his cabal have affected so many other criminal activities against us that it has already taken multiple books to identify them. And, there is now a report—via Michael Yon—that Obama is pulling US air support for our soldiers in-theatre in Afghanistan! Just as Obama showed he cared nothing for the US Ambassador to Libya and his staff, he is now showing with regards to our soldiers. Obama, as does Islam, brings death to all it touches.

So, it was and is unfathomable to me that anyone—unless they are receiving a huge influx of taxpayer money from Obama’s syndicate—would deign to vote for him. Then, something that may (assuming the highly-distorted polling data is even remotely accurate) actually answer my questions came forward.

On a recent Neil Cavuto show, Neil advised that in each swing State where Obama is—ostensibly—showing a lead over Romney, Republican governors have been elected. Hmmm. So, Republican governors have turned these States around financially and placed them firmly back in the “success” column and Obama takes/gets the credit? I still believe that the current polls are more skewed (i.e. “manipulated”) than they have ever been and that—as does the leftist media—they are being doctored to reflect what the dictator wants to see and hear.. However, if there are still those who actually think their States’ triumphs are because of Obama policy—please take the time to look again. Everything Obama has done since seizing our White House has been done with the intent of destroying America and its people. If reelected, his additional Orwellian policies (i.e. destroying our nuclear weapon arsenal at the command of Vladimir Putin, complete takeover of the Internet, elimination of his domestic “enemies” and the final termination of a supplicant Congress) will be immediately implemented. After all, if Obama gets 4 more years, he will have nothing to lose and can operate as the full-dictatorship he has been preparing since before he took office. However, we have everything to lose—including all we own, our liberty and freedom, our lives and the lives of our loved ones.

Is it really that serious? Yes…it is. Please remember the above fully-documented facts and truths (as opposed to the Obama-Lies) as you cast your votes. We will not last as either a people or a nation under 4 more years of the Obama syndicate’s fist.

“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.”—2 Thessalonians 2:9

Obama Rides to the Defense of Radical Islam Against Free Speech:
Obama’s New EPA Rules Would Destroy Our Energy Sector:
Islamists and the Imposition of Shari’a Law:
Obama Invites Terrorist [to White House]:
Report: Obama Justice Department Coordinated With Liberal Site Media Matters:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius still breaking the law!:
The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration:
Report: U.S. Troops In Afghanistan Told No More Close Air Support (“America‘s Dumbest War Ever“):
Sources say U.S. intelligence agencies knew within 24 hours that al Qaeda was behind the attacks in Libya:

God Bless,
JohnnyD

 

 

If Obama’s Economy is a Joke, then What is Clinton Lying about Again!

From: Canada Free Press

Can you find any reason to believe that Obama has done anything to make the middle class stronger?

 

 - Dr. Phil Taverna (Bio and Archives)  Friday, September 28, 2012

 

 The Clinton ad is a joke. And people seem to forget that Billy Bob was the only US President to bring disgrace to the Oval Office. And he is the only president to be impeached for lying. You have to be pretty dumb to get impeached for lying under oath. And he did have a law degree.

 

I have been told that people were working when he was president. The unemployment numbers for the most part are cyclic, if there are no outside forces. It peaks every ten years and then it goes down. So in June 1992 the unemployment was 7.8. By the time Slick took over it was already down to 7.3 in January 1993. So it must have been due to the policies of President Bush Sr. Clinton’s low point was 3.9 in April 2000. It already began to rise from that point. When President GW took over it was already up to 4.2. Can we blame the rise on Clinton’s Policies?

 

In 2007 it became obvious that the banks and the Democrats devalued the housing market. So by June 2007 the unemployment numbers began to rise. And they peaked in October 2009 at 10%. When Obama took office the numbers were 7.8. And it can be argued that the numbers are still 10% or higher if we include the underemployed and those who have surrendered. If over 50% of the new college graduates can’t get jobs, then the numbers are grossly undervalued and since it is an election year who would have thought otherwise.

 

Clinton’s economy did not pick up until he lowered capital gains tax

 

If you recall, Clinton raised income taxes retroactively to a time before he took office. He signed NAFTA with his Democrat congress. And there was a giant sucking sound as manufacturing jobs were being shipped out of America to a tune of about 100,000 American jobs a month at some points. The good news is that every time you close a business in America, people are put to work to move the records and equipment. Buildings need to be vacated and sold or boarded up. And America sold construction goods etc. to other countries to build factories to house our American factories in other countries. And the stock market bloomed under Clinton and a portion of that growth was the dot com era of growth, which for the most part was a failure. Enron was one of those future blue chips that became a black marker instead. According to Morris, Clinton’s economy did not pick up until he lowered capital gains tax.

To recap, Clinton raised the taxes on everyone and the economy was flat. When he lowered capital gains tax the economy began to prosper.  And I always ask: What percentage of the middle class gain financially from an increase in capital gains? Do the rich gain more from capital gains tax reduction than the middle class?  So let’s assume that the rich are more willing to take risks with lower capital gains tax so they spend more money and put more money at risk and as a result more jobs are created.

Obama has actively tried to regulate everything from his oval office with little or no approval from congress

If we look at Obama’s first 4 years, he raised taxes by passing Obamacare. He keeps threatening to raise taxes on the rich. As a result his economy is in the toilet. And Obama has not deregulated anything. He had actively tried to regulate everything from his oval office with little or no approval from congress. This has not helped the economy!

So now lets look at Clinton’s lies, sorry I mean the Obama ad:

“This election to me is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper income people and go back to deregulation. That’s what got us in trouble in the first place”

Thank God, Clinton isn’t under oath! What got us in trouble was Clinton sending 100,000’s of American jobs to other countries while his friends became filthy rich. Clinton started increasing the entitlements while the real jobs in America were dwindling. As a result Clinton added $1.5 trillion to the national debt and who knows how much he stole as IOU’s from the entitlements like social security. And many of the people Clinton kicked off the welfare roles ended up on permanent disability.

So Clinton has this all wrong. What got us in trouble was that the real revenues coming in were being reduced in relationship to what would end up going out. In other words if you are losing 100,000 jobs a week, you eventually lose that tax revenue. In the end social programs like head start, children’s food programs and healthcare begin to shift the balance of real revenue versus government spending. 

“President Obama has a plan to re-build America from the ground up, investing in innovation, education and job training. It only works if there was a strong middle class.  That’s what happened when I was president. We need to keep going with his plan. I am Barack Obama and I approve this message.”

Again we have more lies. Clinton started the police program when the US government subsidized more police personnel for only 2-3 years. It may have falsified his employment numbers but after a few years these folks were no longer subsidized by Clinton.

The real question is in the last 4 years: What has Obama done to encourage innovation, education and job training?  To answer the question substantially, and if you are honest the answer is nothing. It is true that you need to employ the middle class so they can pay the bulk of the revenue to the government. I don’t think Clinton means “strong”. He really means employed with real jobs paying taxes so we can reduce the debt caused by all the unconscionable government spending.

So far Obama has overspent about a trillion dollars a year. He didn’t have to deal with Katrina. He didn’t have to deal with 911. He could have gotten us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen etc. He could have spent money protecting our embassies and their personnel, but he was too busy campaigning.

In the end, Obama has nothing to show the middle class. Obama has made a lot of people rich. He has made bankers rich. He has made his friends rich by allowing them to move their factories to China and making it easy for them to sell their inferior products to Americans.  Obama has made it easier for our American business phones to be answered in foreign countries. Can you find any reason to believe that Obama has done anything to make the middle class stronger? So when Clinton says we need to keep going with his (Obama) plan, I didn’t know Obama had a plan. Did you? The only plan I see is 24 million people not employed and on some kind of government assistance. I see $6 trillion dollars more of debt and that to grow more exponentially as Obamacare takes effect.

Some one should call Clinton on his lies? What is the Obama plan? If he knows, he should share it with us. But if we look at Obama’s numbers, America can’t afford another 4 years of Obama’s failed policies. Even if Clinton continues to lie about them, it won’t make the middle class strong. Matter of fact, it won’t make any American strong. Do you think it might be time to send the liars back to Chicago and Arkansas?

God bless,
JohnnyD

 

AARP is solidly on the side of big government

From: Canada Free Press

Media Blasts Ryan, Acts as if AARP is Non-Partisan

Warner Todd Huston (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, September 25, 2012 

Last week the media was all over Paul Ryan’s visit to an event with the American Association for Retired People gleefully reporting that he was booed. The media treated the whole affair as if the AARP was some non-partisan organization. But, the truth is, the AARP is no more non-partisan than any organization carrying water for the Obama administration.

Take The Hill, for instance. In its report the inside Washington newser noted that the boos Ryan received was “a clear sign of just how big a challenge Medicare poses to the Romney campaign”

This characterization is absurd. It presents the AARP as a venue that might not boo any proposal of the reform of an over taxed government program! AARP is solidly on the side of big government – it was a leading proponent of Obamacare — and will brook no truck with anyone talking of reforming anything. Of course they’ll boo Paul Ryan.

But The Hill does not even give all the facts in its report on Ryan’s visit. Nowhere does the paper mention that AARP made $2.8 billion off its support of Obamacare, for instance. If the reader understood this, he might not be surprised that AARP would resort to booing Ryan.

As Avik Roy recently noted,

“the AARP aggressively, and successfully, lobbied to keep Medigap reforms out of Obamacare, because AARP receives a 4.95 percent royalty on every dollar that seniors spend on its Medigap plans. Reform, DeMint estimates, would have cost AARP $1.8 billion over ten years.

Then there is the insurance windfall that AARP makes off Obamacare that amounts to another $1 billion.

The media should not report the boos Paul Ryan received from AARP as if it is news worthy of note.

On the other hand, at that same AARP event, the same news outlet, The Hill, reported Obama’s welcomed reception as if it was nothing short of the epitome of policy success.

Obama, The Hill reported, was scornful over all the money those evil insurance companies will make without his Obamacare “reforms”

What was missing from The Hill’s report of Obama’s appearance at the AARP gathering? You guessed it, any mention of the $1 billion that AARP will make off its own insurance program thanks to Obamacre.

With a $1 billion windfall, it’s no wonder they were so happy to see their patron in chief!

But, The Hill wasn’t the only news outlet that was so happy to report Ryan’s booing. Any search of the news about the AARP event will net similar results — and similarly neglectful reportage — of the event.

While just a small example, the treatment that Ryan received by the Old Media over his appearance at the AARP event was typical of the negative and uninformative coverage that the whole media establishment has afforded Romney/Ryan throughout this campaign.

God bless,
JohnnyD

Citizen Journalism: Taking back the media

Dear Fellow American,

Did you hear the outrageous story last week of a Florida algebra professor who forced her students to sign a pledge promising to vote for President Obama and Democratic candidates “up and down the ticket”?

This story was picked up by the Drudge Report, was carried by radio hosts Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, and covered nationally on outlets ranging from FOX News to Comedy Central.

But what you might not know is that this egregious incident would never have been exposed if it weren’t for one man – a Florida resident and ordinary citizen, Richard Swier – who broke the story as a part of the Franklin Center’s Citizen Watchdog initiative. Because of Richard’s great work, the professor has been suspended without pay and is under investigation.

I’m writing to tell you about this because taking back the media is critical to taking back our country. Citizen Journalism is transforming our media and political landscape – and in order to succeed, we need YOU to take action. Please click here to learn how you can get involved and make a difference!

There are three things that you can do right now, joining with the Citizen Watchdog team, to stand up and make a difference:

1) Forward this email to as many friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers as possible, and encourage them to get involved as a part of this important effort!

2) Sign up and become a part of our Citizen Watchdog initiative by clicking here. We provide training, tools, and resources to empower thousands of citizens across America to tell the stories that the mainstream media won’t.

3) Donate to support our Citizen Watchdog efforts. It’s only through the generous support of great Americans like you that we’re able to keep this program moving forward. Your donation will help support training and resources for our army of citizen activists. Please click here to make a contribution!

Time and time again, we’ve seen the power of citizen journalism – whether it’s with the downfall of Dan Rather from the helm of CBS News, the federal defunding of ACORN, or the countless examples that are happening each and every day because of citizens like you.

Richard is one among thousands of volunteer activists who have signed up as part of the Franklin Center’s Citizen Watchdog team. He is a living example of how ordinary citizens can achieve extraordinary things. Join Richard and answer the call to hold our local, state, and federal governments accountable. We are leading an investigative crusade of public integrity. Click here to get started!

-The Citizen Watchdog Team

God bless,
JohnnyD

'Unskewed' polls show nearly 8-point Romney lead

From: World Net Daily

by Jerome R. Corsi - 9-25-2012

NEW YORK – Arguing that most of the major polls reported by establishment media are “skewed” in favor of the Democratic Party and incumbent Barack Obama, a website contends that a true gauge of the presidential race, based on more realistic models, shows Republican challenger Mitt Romney leading by an average of nearly eight points.

In its daily readjustment of the polling data, UnskewedPoll.com also produces a table showing the spread in President Obama’s approval/disapproval ratio is an average of 8.8 percent more disapproval, as of Monday.

Not a single major poll or approval/disapproval index favors Obama when Unskewed.com’s analysis is applied.

The website says there is Democratic bias in polling because of over-sampling Democrats based on voter exit polls in the 2008 presidential election, when enthusiasm for a then relatively unknown but charismatic presidential candidate boosted Democratic Party voter registration and turnout to historic levels.

Race beginning to look a lot like 1980? What might Ronald Reagan’s victory path mean?

Source: http://unskewedpolls.com/ LV = Likely Voters, RV=Registered Voters, MoE=Margin of Error

Republicans have complained that the establishment media’s voter-turnout models can serve a partisan purpose by presenting margins that keep discouraged Republican voters at home thinking the election is already lost.

Signs Obama losing

Despite the establishment media narrative that the Romney campaign is behind and in disarray, there are abundant signs the Obama campaign is behind and scrambling not to lose further ground:

• On Saturday, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina insisted to reporters that despite national polls showing Romney and Obama locked in a tie, Obama is still winning.
• WND reported last week Obama’s chief financier, Penny Pritzker, has entered the Hawaii housing market to buy a retirement home for the president and his family that will be available not in 2016, but in January 2013.
• On the eve of the opening session of the General Assembly, the Obama administration’s Middle Eastern policy appears to be imploding in the wake of the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in an attack that intelligence sources believe was coordinated by jihadists tied to al-Qaida. The administration, nevertheless, insisted the attack was a response to an anti-Muslim movie trailer produced in the U.S.
• Initial jobless claims for the week ending Sept. 15 were a seasonally adjusted 382,000, exceeding forecasts of 375,000, suggesting no improvement in the percentage of Americans unemployed could be anticipated before the November election, as reported by Wall Street Journal Market Watch.
• Politico has reported that in the latest Politico-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which constitute approximately 54 percent of the electorate and usually split their vote between Democratic and Republican candidates, Romney holds a 14-point advantage, 55 percent to 41 percent.

God bless,
JohnnyD

Democratic Myth No. 1: GOP is to blame for failure of Obama’s job policies

From: Human Events

By: Andrew Puzder  - 9/24/2012 

Editor’s Note: This analysis the first in a five-part series on Democrats’ mythical sound bites by Andrew Puzder, an economic adviser to Mitt Romney and CEO of CKE Restaurants, which employs about 21,000 workers.

President Obama has been attempting to blame Republicans in Congress for the failure of his economic policies to lower our nation’s chronic unemployment.  Faced with the extremely negative August jobs report the day after his convention acceptance speech, the president stated that: “If Republicans are serious about getting rid of joblessness, they can create one million new jobs if Congress passes the jobs plan I sent them.”

Sound bite:  It’s the Republicans’ fault.

This is one of a number of mythical sound bites the president and his surrogates repeat glibly and often despite the lack of any factual basis.  As I will outline below, during the first two years of his term, President Obama proposed (and when Democrats were in complete control, actually passed) various pieces of legislation that failed to improve our economy but did succeed in increasing government regulation, driving costs higher for businesses, lowering incentives to work and increasing dependency.

To anyone with any business acumen, it was axiomatic that these policies would result in anemic growth and high unemployment.  The electorate recognized this in the mid-term elections when it resoundingly gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives.

In response, the president first failed to adapt his policies to political and economic reality and then doubled down by offering more big government, increased dependency, incentive-killing legislation such as his “jobs bill.”

It is simply preposterous for the president to now complain because Republicans refuse to pass legislation that would codify the failed policies Democrats passed during the first half of his term when such policies patently failed and the electorate wisely rejected them.  In short, sometimes bi-partisanship is severely overrated.

President Obama’s suffering economy

Perhaps the president has concluded that because the election is rapidly approaching, it’s too late for actual policy and better to just blame the Republicans.  With 43 straight months of 8 percent or higher unemployment, more than 23  million Americans struggling to find work, 47 million Americans on food stamps, our national debt over $16 trillion following the President’s four $1-trillion-plus annual budget deficits, and an anemic 1.7 percent in second quarter GDP growth, the president better hope he can find someone to blame — and quickly.

Add to this scenario a drop of $4,000 in annual income per American household since President Obama took office while gas prices have doubled and health care premiums have climbed over $2,300 per family and you have an economic record that is an unmitigated disaster.  Given the President’s economic policies, this should hardly surprise anyone outside the White House.

Three destructive Obama administration policies

First, there’s the legislation Democrats passed under President Obama to fix our economy during the nearly two years they had control of the presidency, the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  There’s the failed trillion-dollar stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent and reduce it to 5.4 percent by now but did little other than increase our debt. The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Then there’s the ironically titled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that was to reduce health care costs but has resulted only in cost increases that are set to continue in an upward spiral.

Finally, there’s the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that essentially enshrined “too big to fail.”  Its voluminous rules are some of the most convoluted and confusing our capital markets have ever seen burying community banks in regulations, stifling business and hurting consumers.

Obama’s free rein for two years—now it’s Republicans’ fault? Really?

Basically, for nearly two years, President Obama got whatever legislation he wanted.  He signed massive legislative initiatives none of which has helped the economy recover.  To the contrary, they have hurt the recovery.  Now it’s the Republican’s fault that his policies have failed?  Really?

A central theme of the “It’s the Republican’s fault” myth is that Republicans are refusing to act to improve the economy so as to hurt President Obama.  How can we expect our post-partisan President Obama to succeed when those evil Republicans refuse to help him?  After hearing the horrifically bad August jobs report, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that: “The best way to speed up our recovery is for Republicans to stop their knee-jerk obstruction of every effort Democrats put forward and start working across the aisle to find common ground.”

Jobs bills stuck in Democratic Senate

The reality is that the House, the one branch of government the Republicans actually control, has passed 38, yes 38, separate jobs bills over the past 20 months.  All of these bills are stuck in the Democratic-controlled Senate. You can easily track the progress of The House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators and learn more about the 38 bills Republicans in the House have already passed that actually would help entrepreneurs do what they do best:  Create the jobs, wealth and prosperity that benefit all Americans. Here’s the link.  There is no similar link for the Democrat controlled Senate as they have passed no job-creating bills.

Surely, a president or a senate majority leader willing to work “across the aisle to find common ground” could find something to support in these 38 bills.  Apparently, all 38 attempts to work across the aisle with Senate Democrats were insufficient.

But what about the president’s so called “jobs bill”?  Would it actually create a million new jobs as he claims?  As I explained in a recent Human Events article, the president’s jobs bill fails to do the one thing that might realistically result in job growth:  Release the dynamic energy of our free enterprise system by getting government out of the way of job creators and letting them, well, create jobs.  Rather than working with or encouraging the private sector, the president’s “jobs bill” resorts to the three things he seems to trust: Government, government and more government.

Obama aims to create government jobs

He proposes lowering unemployment by hiring government employees and investing in government infrastructure projects (shovel ready?).  His “jobs bill” is nothing more than a second stimulus.  Of course, he ignores that each of his proposed “job creating” government initiatives requires tax revenue and that tax revenue requires a self-sustaining cycle of private sector job creation.  On the economy, this president consistently puts the proverbial government cart before the tax revenue horse.

Keeping teachers and other public employees on the job is certainly important; but it will not create a self-sustaining cycle of job creation. Public employee salaries are bills the private sector must pay by creating jobs and generating tax revenue. That’s how public employees are paid and public projects are financed. Public employees are not paid by the revenues they generate as the taxes they pay are of necessity less than their salaries and benefits. Otherwise, who would take the jobs? On a net basis, government employees are tax consumers rather than taxpayers.

Why private sector job growth matters

It is the private sector that must generate the tax revenue necessary to pay these public employees. Without private sector jobs there are no funds to pay any public employees or to fund infrastructure projects. Transferring federal tax dollars to states so that, for one more year, they can retain employees they are unable to afford absent state tax increases, will not create a self-sustaining cycle of job creation no matter how necessary the state employees may be.  One would think the president’s experience with his first failed stimulus plan would have taught him this.

Second, while investing in infrastructure is certainly something the government should do and something we need, building roads and bridges will only create short-term jobs.  It will not generate the self-sustaining cycle of private sector job creation we need for economic growth. We need roads and bridges so people with jobs who can afford to buy cars can use the roads and bridges to get to their jobs or so that goods can get to markets. In the long term, it isn’t the roads and bridges that create the jobs; it is private sector jobs that create the need for roads and bridges as well as the funds to build them.

Until the president understands how our free enterprise system actually works, the likelihood of any “jobs bill” he proposes actually working is de minimis.  The government is incapable of creating the jobs we need.  It can, however, facilitate the private sector doing so by encouraging rather than constantly attacking and placing barriers before private sector job creators.  Republicans should be praised for refusing to pass a second stimulus packaged as a “jobs bill” that essentially spends billions of dollars for a short-term fix with an even lower probability of long-term success than the president’s first stimulus.  However, since this “jobs bill” failed to pass, it is possible for Democrats to enshrine it in a sound bite myth.

Time to look at reality

It’s time to ignore the myths and look at reality.  While he may be well intentioned and sincere, President Obama simply lacks the intuitive understanding and experience to effectively deal with the economic issues our nation is facing.  His government-centric approach simply is not working and is never going to work. It creates a dependency culture with regulatory and tax policies that are antithetical to growth.  History is replete with examples of such approaches failing.  Most recently, Europe tried it.  Europe failed.

This is the antithesis of the policies Gov. Romney would pursue as president.  Gov. Romney’s policy as president would be to promote personal freedom and independence, encourage the private sector, make regulation more prudent and less intrusive and eliminate crony capitalism.

Our choice is clear.  We are either going to be a free enterprise-based society or a government-centered, government-dependent society.  The difference between the two candidates is that simple.  We need a president who understands the American free enterprise system and what we need to do to get it back on track. Luckily, in Mitt Romney we have such a candidate.  Hopefully, we will give him the opportunity to lead us beyond the myths come November.

Andrew Puzder is CEO of CKE Restaurants, Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants. He is co-author of “Job Creation: How it Really Works and Why the Government doesn’t Understand it.” He is an Economic Adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  

God bless,
JohnnyD

A new Cold War

From: World Net Daily

Exclusive: Former Soviet-bloc spy chief reveals secret puppet-master behind Islamic radicalism

 by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa

Editor’s note: Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc official ever to defect to the West. In December 1989, Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu was executed at the end of a trial whose accusations came almost word-for-word out of Pacepa’s book, “Red Horizons,” subsequently republished in 27 countries.

After President Carter approved his request for political asylum, Pacepa became an American citizen and worked with U.S. intelligence agencies against the former Eastern Bloc. The CIA has praised Pacepa’s cooperation for providing “an important and unique contribution to the United States.” His new book, “Disinformation,” co-authored with professor Ronald Rychlak, will be published by WND Books in 2013.

The view that the latest wave of Muslim outrage worldwide, including the murderous assault on the U.S. embassy in Libya and new threats from Iran, is somehow a “spontaneous” reaction to the low-budget film “Innocence of Muslims,” has been revealed to be political naïveté at best, and ignorant or intentional scapegoating at worst.

After all, even the president of Libya, Yousef El-Magariaf, stated that “no doubt” the attack had been “preplanned,” emphasizing that the terrorists had chosen a “specific date for this so-called demonstration.”

However, the day of our ambassador’s murder, Sept. 11, 2012, also happened to be the very day the Kremlin celebrated a significant anniversary – 125 years since the birth of Feliks Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the KGB, now rechristened FSB.

Read Gen. Pacepa’s remarkable insights into how Marxism has infected America and what that means for the nation’s future.

My past experience at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community gives me solid ground to state that the Muslim attacks on U.S. embassies and the assassination of our ambassador to Libya, carried out with Soviet-made rocket-propelled grenades, Kalashnikovs and Molotov cocktails, were just as “spontaneous” as the May Day parades in Moscow – and that they have the same organizers.

In 1972, I had a breakfast with then-KGB chairman Yury Andropov in Moscow. The Kremlin, he told me, had decided to transform Arab anti-Semitism into an anti-American doctrine for the whole Muslim world. The idea was to portray the United States as a war-mongering, Zionist country financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion” (the KGB’s derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) intent on transforming the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. Andropov made the point that one billion adversaries could cause far greater damage than could a mere 150 million. Even Muhammad, he said, had not limited his religion to Arab countries.

The KGB boss described the Muslim world as a waiting petri dish, in which we could nurture a strain of hate-America, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep, he said. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism and victimology, and their illiterate, oppressed mobs could easily be whipped up to a fever pitch. We had only to keep repeating, over and over, that the United States was a war-mongering, Zionist country anxious to take over the whole world.

The KGB community threw millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. Before I left Romania for good in 1978, my Romanian espionage service alone had sent some 500 undercover agents to various Islamic countries. Most of them were religious servants, engineers, medical doctors, teachers and art instructors. According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the whole Soviet bloc intelligence community had sent around 4,000 such agents of influence to the Islamic world.

How much influence did this effort have? No one can say for sure, but over 20-plus years of cumulative effect through disseminating millions of Arabic translations of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in Arabic throughout the Islamic world and portraying the United States as a criminal Zionist surrogate should have made some dent. Witness the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the 1998 destruction of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the atrocious September 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. itself, which killed almost 3,000 Americans.

Up until 1978, when I finally got the guts to break with the evil Soviet empire, I was witness to the Kremlin’s intelligence efforts to transform the Muslim world. In 2006, I told American columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez about these efforts, and a few days later I described them in a piece she published in the National Review under the title “Russian Footprints.” Last March, that article was republished on the website of historian Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and editor of the Middle East Quarterly journal, under the title: “Why has Pacepa been ignored on the cause of global terrorism and on the cause of the Arab Israeli conflict?”

Because repetitio est mater studiorum, allow me to take the liberty of repeating, here and today, some of the points I made in that earlier article. Now they really seem to hit home. These points are further developed and documented in a new book, “Disinformation,” that I have co-authored with Prof. Ronald Rychlak, scheduled to be released by WND Books in early 2013.

Hijacking commercial airplanes: a KGB weapon of choice

As far back as 1969, Andropov introduced a new arrow into the KGB’s quiver: the hijacking of El Al airplanes. Andropov had begun his unprecedented 15 years as KGB chairman just a few months before the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War, in which Israel humiliated the Soviet Union’s most important allies in the Arab world at that time – Egypt and Syria. In those days, the governments of those two countries were in effect being run by Soviet advisers. As new KGB chairman, Andropov decided to repair the Kremlin’s prestige by internationally humiliating Israel.

Before 1969 came to an end, Palestinian terrorists, trained at the KGB’s Balashikha special-operations school east of Moscow, had hijacked their first El Al plane and landed it in Algeria, where its 32 Jewish passengers were held hostage for five weeks. The hijacking had been planned and coordinated by the KGB’s Thirteenth Department, known in Soviet bloc intelligence jargon as the Department for Wet Affairs (wet being a KGB euphemism for bloody). To conceal the KGB’s hand, Andropov had the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (created and financed by the KGB) take credit for the hijacking. During the next two years, various Palestinian terrorists (trained by the KGB) took credit for hijacking 13 Israeli and Western passenger planes and for blowing up a Swissair plane in flight, killing 47 passengers and crew. All these hijackings were masterminded by the KGB.

It is surely not accidental that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists using hijacked airplanes.

Terrorism – the Kremlin’s main weapon against its ‘Main Enemy’

“In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon against American Zionism.” That is what Andropov began preaching in the early 1970s. The huge political “success” brought about by hijacking airplanes prompted him to expand international terrorism and directly target the United States, which the KGB had for years called the “Main Enemy” (glavnyy protivnik in Russian).

In 1971, Andropov unleashed operation “Tayfun” (Russian for “typhoon”), aimed at expanding his anti-American terrorism into Western Europe as well. He even established a “socialist division of labor” to mobilize the whole Soviet bloc in support of his new international terrorism. The Czechoslovakian intelligence service was charged with supplying an odorless plastic explosive (Semtex-H) that could not be detected by sniffer dogs at airports. In 1990, Czech president Vaclav Havel acknowledged that the former communist regime of his country had secretly shipped 1,000 tons of this odorless plastic explosive to Palestinian and Libyan terrorists. According to Havel, a mere 200 grams was enough to blow up a commercial plane in flight.

“World terrorism has supplies of Semtex to last 150 years,” Havel estimated.

For their part, the East Germans had to provide the terrorists with arms and ammunition. According to secret documents discovered in the Stasi (the KGB’s East German counterpart) archives after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1983 alone the Stasi provided secret terrorist organizations in West Germany with $1,877,600 worth of AK-47 ammunition.

The Cubans were charged with mass-producing concealment devices for smuggling the plastic explosive into the target countries. In 1972, I spent a “working vacation” in Havana as the guest of Raul Castro, at that time the head of Cuba’s military and security forces, and I visited what proved to be the Soviet bloc’s largest factory for manufacturing double-walled suitcases and other concealment devices for use in secretly infiltrating weapons into various non-Communist countries. Sergio del Valle, head of the Cuban security forces, told me that smuggling arms to terrorist organizations was one of his main jobs at that time.

Romania’s slice of the pie in that joint venture was to produce false Western passports needed by Andropov’s “freedom fighters.” During my last six years in Romania, its political police, the Securitate, became the Soviet bloc’s main manufacturer of forged West German, Austrian, French, British, Italian and Spanish passports, which were regularly provided to various international terrorist organizations and groups.

In the mid 1970s, a wave of terrorism inundated Western Europe. Tayfun’s first major accomplishment was the assassination of Richard Welsh, the CIA station chief in Athens, on Dec. 23, 1975. That was followed by a bomb attack on Gen. Alexander Haig, commander of NATO in Brussels, who luckily was not injured, although his armored Mercedes limousine was damaged beyond repair. Then in quick succession came a rocket attack against Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, commander of U.S. forces in Europe, who also escaped alive; a grenade attack against Alfred Herrhausen, one of the most pro-American chairmen of the Deutsche Bank, who was killed; and an assassination attempt on Hans Neusel, the pro-American state secretary at the West German Ministry of Interior responsible for internal security affairs, who was wounded.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, those terrorist operations fortunately went poof, and scores of KGB-sponsored terrorists were arrested in the former East Germany. Peter-Michael Diestel, who became East Germany’s interior minister after the fall of its communist government, acknowledged in 1990 that Schönefeld Airport in East Berlin had for years been a KGB “turntable for terrorists of all kinds.” Christian Lochte, a senior official in the West German counterintelligence service, stated that the KGB and its East German surrogate, the Stasi, had done “everything possible to destabilize this country and the rest of Western Europe as well.”

Andropov: Father of today’s anti-Semitism and international terrorism

In discussing Andropov’s legacy, Western Sovietologists usually confine themselves to recalling his brutal suppression of political dissidents, his role in planning the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia and his pressure on the Polish regime to impose martial law. In contrast, the leaders of the Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when I was one of them, looked upon Andropov as the father of the new era of international political influence designed to revive anti-Semitism around the world, and to turn the Islamic world into the deadly enemy of American Zionism.

In August 1998, two months after Andropov pupil and former KGB general Yevgeny Primakov became Russia’s prime minister, Gen. Albert Makashov, a member of the Duma, alleged that the Jews were being paid by American Zionism to ruin the Russian motherland, and he called for the “extermination of all Jews in Russia.” Over and over again, Russian television screens showed him screaming at the Duma: “I will round up all the Yids [pejorative for Jews] and send them to the next world.” On Nov. 4, 1998, the Duma endorsed Makashov’s pogrom by voting (121 to 107) to defeat a parliamentary motion censuring his hate-filled statement. At the Nov. 7, 1998, demonstration marking the 81st anniversary of the October Revolution, crowds of former KGB officers showed their support for the general, chanting “hands off Makashov!” and waving signs with anti-Semitic slogans.

The grisly decapitation of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 epitomizes Andropov’s legacy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, carried out the gruesome murder of Pearl for the sole reason that Pearl was an American Jew.

No wonder the deeply anti-Semitic and anti-American Andropov became the first head of the KGB to move up and sit on the Kremlin throne. In 1989, Andropov also became the only KGB chief to have his office transformed into a shrine. Western journalists were invited to visit the Lubyanka and piously escorted to view Andropov’s conference room with its marble fireplace, his private office with another fireplace, and the adjoining bedroom with its Spartan furnishings of bed, refrigerator and table. From the press descriptions, the rooms all sounded just the way I remembered having seen them the last time I was there. Even more remarkable is the report that Andropov’s shrine has survived the fall of the Soviet Union.

Today’s Russia: History’s first intelligence dictatorship

Post-communist Russia has indeed been transformed in unprecedented and positive ways, and a young generation of intellectuals is now struggling to develop a new national identity for that country. Nevertheless, in spite of what we read in the newspapers, hear on TV and are told by the State Department, Russia is not yet a democracy. In fact, Russia has become the first intelligence dictatorship in history, and it should be dealt with accordingly.

On Dec. 31, 1999, Vladimir Putin – at one time the KGB counterpart of my old self – who a few months earlier had maneuvered to become Russia’s prime minister, enthroned himself in the Kremlin as supreme leader, following a KGB palace coup. Whereupon Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first freely elected president, ceded the field and on national TV announced his resignation: “I understand that I must do it,” he said, “and Russia must enter the new millennium with new politicians, with new faces, with new intelligent, strong, energetic people.” Yeltsin then signed a decree transferring his power to Putin. For his part, Putin signed a decree pardoning Yeltsin – who was said to be involved in huge bribery scandals – “for any possible misdeeds” and granting him “total immunity” from being prosecuted (or even searched and questioned) for “any and all” actions committed while in office. Putin also gave Yeltsin a lifetime pension and a state dacha. Quid pro quo, as we would say.

During the Cold War, the KGB was a state within a state. Under President Putin, the KGB, rechristened the FSB, is the state. Three years after Putin plunked himself down on the Kremlin throne, some 6,000 former officers of the KGB – that organization responsible for having slaughtered at least 20 million people in the Soviet Union alone – were running Russia’s federal and local governments. Nearly half of all other top governmental positions were held by former officers of the KGB. Having taken care of that, the newly appointed President Putin brought back good old Stalin’s national anthem, which had been prohibited since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although the “new” anthem did have new lyrics, they had been written by the same old poet, Sergey Mikhalkov, who had written the original words praising Stalin, Lenin, the Communist Party and the “unbreakable” Soviet Union. Yelena Bonner, the widow of Nobel Peace Prize winner Andrey Sakharov, called the revived Soviet anthem a “profanation of history.” Putin disagreed, saying: “We have overcome the differences between the past and the present.”

On Feb. 12, 2004, Putin declared the demise of the Soviet Union a “national tragedy on an enormous scale,” and in July 2007, he predicted a new Cold War against the West.

“War has started,” Putin announced on Aug. 8, 2008, just minutes after President George W. Bush and other world leaders, gathered in Beijing to watch the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, were shocked and surprised to learn that Russian tanks had rolled across the Russian border into Georgia.

Is it too far-fetched to suggest that this new Russia calls up the hypothetical image of a postwar Germany being run by former Gestapo officers, who reinstate Hitler’s “Deutschland Über Alles” as national anthem, call the demise of Nazi Germany a “national tragedy on an enormous scale” and invade a neighboring country, perhaps Poland, the way Hitler set off World War II?

In Russia, the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same

During those days when Andropov was head of the KGB and I was at the top of the Soviet bloc foreign intelligence community, there was a banner in my office proclaiming, all in upper-case letters: CAPITALIST ESPIONAGE REPORTS HISTORY. WE MAKE IT. In the Soviet bloc, our omniscient dictators did not want us to send them information. They already knew better, and in fact they frequently took offense when we intelligence chiefs tried to tell them something new. In one classic example of that mindset, there still exists an intelligence report sent to Stalin in May 1941, predicting that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union in June 1941. On this report, Stalin scribbled a note saying: “You can send your ‘source’ to his f—ing mother. This is a dezinformator.” On June 22, 1941, Hitler did indeed invade the Soviet Union, which paid a heavy price for Stalin’s misuse of the country’s foreign intelligence service through giving it no other function than to tell the world how great he was. Ten million military men and 14 million civilians were killed. Five million more were taken prisoner by the Nazis.

Stalin and his successors in the Kremlin continued to use their foreign intelligence apparatus to embellish their own rule and their own stature, through the simple strategy of changing the historical past and the visible present, in order to fit in with their plans for the future. Within our Soviet bloc intelligence community, that was called dezinformatsiya, and it was presented as an eminently Russian and wondrously effective science. During the Cold War, more people worked for dezinformatsiya than for the whole Soviet army and defense industry put together. Few outsiders knew about it, because it was submerged in secrecy.

This secret practice and this invisible disinformation army were revived under Putin’s presidency, as described in great detail in the upcoming book on disinformation that I co-authored with Prof. Rychlak. Totalitarianism always requires a tangible enemy, and the United States, which during the 47 years of Cold War was portrayed by the KGB as its “Main Enemy,” has continued to be painted by the Putin administration as the country’s principal foe.

Soon after President Putin and his ex-KGB officers began running Russia, they moved their country back into the encampment of the Soviet Union’s traditional clients – which had been the deadliest enemies of the United States. Putin started out favoring precisely the three governments labeled by the U.S. as an “axis of evil” – Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

In March 2002, Putin quietly reinstituted Russian sales of weapons to Iran’s dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei, and began secretly helping that nation’s terrorist government to achieve the production of nuclear weapons and to develop ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear or germ warheads to any target in the Middle East and Europe. In August 2002, Putin concluded a $40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime in Iraq. Then, just before September 2002, while the United States was preparing to mourn its victims of the previous year’s terrorist attack, Putin received North Korea’s despicable dictator Kim Jong Il in Moscow, with grand honors.

Next, the ex-KGB officers installed in the Kremlin began arming the anti-American Arab terrorists, just as they had done in the Soviet Union’s day. On July 12, 2006, militants of Hezbollah (“Party of God”), an anti-Semitic Muslim fundamentalist organization, launched a powerful rocket attack against Israel, followed by a 34-day Israeli offensive against the attacker. Most of the Hezbollah weapons cases captured by the Israeli military forces during that offensive were marked: “Customer: Ministry of Defense of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.”

In October 2010, the same Russian-supported Hezbollah conducted a drill simulating the takeover of Israel. The European Union-sponsored Gulf Research Centre, which provides journalists an inside view of the Middle East area, found out that Hezbollah’s military forces were armed with a large quantity of the “Soviet-made Katyusha-122 rocket, which carries a 33-pound warhead.” Hezbollah was also armed with the Russian-designed and Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets, which can reach the Israeli port of Haifa, and with the Russian- designed Zelzal-1 rockets, which can reach Tel Aviv. Hezbollah also possessed the infamous Russian Scud missiles, as well as Russian anti-tank missiles AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel, AT-13 Saxhorn-2, and AT-14 Spriggan Kornet.

Last March, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney branded Russia as America’s No. 1 geopolitical enemy. While saying that the greatest current threat to the world is a “nuclear Iran,” the presidential hopeful lambasted the Kremlin for consistently “standing up for the world’s worst actors,” referencing the Russian veto of the U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria.

Russia’s outgoing president at that time, Dmitry Medvedev, stated that Romney’s remarks had a Hollywood flavor, and he urged the American to check his watch. “It is 2012 now, not the mid-1970s,” Medvedev said.

America needs a realistic foreign policy

The current U.S. policy toward Putin’s Russia is called “Reset,” erroneously translated by the State Department as peregruzka, meaning “overcharged.” There are quite a few meanings for “reset” in dictionaries, but all tend to signify restore (except in Scotland, where “reset” is the legal term for knowingly and dishonestly receiving stolen goods.)

Russia’s intelligence dictatorship is, however, a brand new political phenomenon, and we need a brand new foreign policy to deal with it. Otherwise, we may face a new Cold War, one that threatens to be not only cold, but also bloody.

I do not know what our new policy toward Russia should be. I have no access to classified information, and no wish to play the armchair general. The know-it-all talking heads in the American media are no wiser than I am. I do, however, have good reason to suggest that our administration and Congress take a serious look at President Truman’s NSC 68/1950.

The NSC 68/1950 report of the National Security Council did not blame movies or books for the Cold War’s ideological and terrorist attacks against the United States. That down-to-earth 58-page document described the challenges facing the United States in realistic terms.

“The issues that face us are momentous,” NSC 68/1950 stated, “involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself.”

Therefore, NSC 68/1950 focused on creating a “new world order” centered on American liberal-capitalist values, and it contained a two-pronged political strategy: superior military power and a “Campaign of Truth,” defined as “a struggle, above all else, for the minds of men.” Truman argued that the propaganda used by the “forces of imperialistic communism” could be overcome only by the “plain, simple, unvarnished truth.” The Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberation (soon to become Radio Liberty) became part of Truman’s “Campaign of Truth.”

If you still wonder how the United States was able to win the Cold War without firing a shot, here is one explanation from Romania’s second post-communist president, Emil Constantinescu:

Radio Free Europe has been a lot more important than the armies and the most sophisticated missiles. The “missiles” that destroyed Communism were launched from Radio Free Europe, and this was Washington’s most important investment during the Cold War. I don’t know whether the Americans themselves realize this now, seven years after the fall of Communism, but we understand it perfectly well.

President Constantinescu’s metaphor is not overreaching. According to Romania’s post-communist media, in 1988 and 1989, when Radio Free Europe was serializing my book Red Horizons, the streets of Bucharest were empty. The Romanians were eager to see their glorified tyrant naked, the way he really was – an illiterate drug smuggler and international terrorist who had made a personal fortune by secretly selling weapons and Romania’s people for Western currency. On Christmas Day of 1989, Ceausescu was executed by his own people, at the end of a trial whose main accusations came out of my book. Now Romania is a member of the European Union and NATO.

Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence official ever to defect to the West. His new book, “Disinformation,” co-authored with Prof. Ronald Rychlak, will be published by WND Books in early 2013. The entire September issue of WND’s monthly Whistleblower magazine is dedicated to “Disinformation.”

God bless,
JohnnyD