Letter to the Editor – Rightwing Republicans, the Rise of Job Creators and the Death of Everyone Else

There is a perversity afoot amongst the readership here in idyllic, semi-rural Virginia in that the ardent supporters of the rightwing Republican lifestyle and secular religion are demonstrating with utmost fidelity the governing meme of 1930’s Germany, as explained so well by Herr Josef Goebbels.  That isn’t to say a significant element of said readership isn’t tolerant of opposing points of view, or civil in their tolerance, and less pushy about insisting on the righteous rectitude of their positions.  And thankfully so, but for this latter group, there isn’t perversity but paradox: oddly, these people will largely remain silent when they must not and cannot if their government and culture is to be anything at all like what they’d hope it to be, and what the founding fathers (and all the immigrants drawn to this country from the very beginning) wanted it to be.

Since I began to write opinion pieces like this, I’ve been struck by the courageous and colorful cloaks (like early pamphlet writers, n’est-ce pas?) of anonymity used by those who don’t debate but instead take the bumper sticker flavor of the month and ride it, huffing and puffing, as if it were a fundamental truth like gravity or sunrise, not a jejeune (oh, look it up) oversimplification.

In other words, my dear friends of the Republican right, you’ve let yourselves be dumbed down, brainwashed, Sun Myung Moon-style, though you’re so far removed from the people actually pulling the strings you might just as well be on another planet.  Which, in their eyes, you are.

An illustration of this big lie two-step is the rabid exaltation of “Job Creator”.  What exactly is a job creator, and why exalt that particular species?  Is a job creator exalted for paying employees less than they need to live on, simply because people in India, China, and third world countries haven’t yet achieved the standard of living we have here in America.  Or shipping jobs overseas?  Or to be exalted for cutbacks to healthcare benefits while simultaneously protesting Obamacare, postures that would otherwise signify a defiant mean-spiritedness and completely unChristian regard for the suffering of others.  Isn’t it a mystery how these people attend religious services so piously, yet show no outward signs of hypocrisy, like a scarlet ‘H’ on their forehead, say.

Ask any rightwing lemming why job creators are more exalted than job doers, (or artisans or even the much-maligned union laborer or NEA teacher) and they’ll tell you, probably, that their contempt for non-job creators is rooted in the fact that these cretins all sup gluttonously at the public trough.  Never mind that the most gluttonous of the sup-pers at the public trough are large corporations who work against regulations promulgated for the public good, or who evade the taxes levied for the own and the public good, or who oppose spending on the infrastructure and social fabric that supports the democratic, secular society where job creators can actually thrive.

That would be, as Al Gore once famously said in a different context, An Inconvenient Truth.

David Brooks and Mark Shields are commentators who occasionally share a common viewpoint and from whom, I freely admit, the idea of challenging the false and fulsome praise now being heaped on “Job Creators” came first.  In their view, and mine, there are fundamental flaws that operate against exaltation of this so-called Job Creator species.

Foremost, as Romney himself acknowledged, and Obama then underscored (look that up, too), you don’t create jobs without infrastructure and a rule-based society.  And we aren’t all job creators: we need job doers – teachers, and cops, and butchers and bakers, and social workers.  We can’t create jobs without a properly educated, safe and motivated workforce to perform them.  While robots will perform many blue-collar labor functions over time, maintenance, installation and re-configuration efforts are part of any foreseeable automation model.  Try doing those jobs without skilled people, lacking a proper education, not in good health, and eating tainted food.

Though drones and battlefield robots will challenge the pre-eminence of  “warriors”, a term so condescending I cringe and use populist terms of my generation (“grunt”) and my father’s (GI), the same needs apply, overlaid by bravery, willingness to sacrifice and patriotism.  Predicated on what – making the rich richer?  Kowtowing to Job Creators?  It’s an outrage to exalt Job Creators while denigrating others, especially vets, and especially after Rummy countenanced inadequately armored vehicles for so long and Congress shortchanges vet care and counseling even now.

We need to offset the toxicity of rightwing Republican brainwashing on the fearfully vulnerable, you know, on the evangelicals, the retired military and the Fox demographic.  Not all in those groups, certainly, but those who’ve never been taught or who steadfastly resist critical thinking.  Otherwise what we’ll continue to see instead are big lies and knee-jerk vituperation responding to letters like this that challenge what rightwing Republicans swallow as politically correct.

So, exalt Job Creators?  Sure, but not uber alles, and not at the expense of the bedrock.

Donald Marro

The Plains, Virginia



  1. I agree, and my say to those that despise the President: The big money backers of Romney Hood and Lyin’ Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOTP Agents of Gridlock Grover will stop at nothing to kill the middle class and install a self-serving American aristocracy. Disillusioned voters are being duped and disenfranchised to install a permanent plutocracy. If you hate Obama, then vote a write in for yourself, as some of the commenters here seem to know it all.

    • just the facts..PLEASE says:

      PATRIOT…..huh…..guess there is some “pun intended” on that handle……..dreaming about a “Peoples Republic of America” are you??? Been reading a little Karl Marx??? You certainly have the hate speech and irrational name calling parts down.

      • A patriot is a person who loves his or her country. Just because you disagree with what the writer is saying here does not negate his (or her) status as a patriot. It’s okay to hold different views, be they political or religious. You have the right to disagree, but there is no set right or wrong if you remain objective and remove ego from the equation.

        It’s time we all learn to set aside our differences and work together for the Common Good. Let’s act like were worthy of the honor of being Americans.

  2. kellcsmith says:

    I’ve now moved Clarke Daily News (talk about a misnomer) website from my “News” folder to my “Second-Tier Political Blogs” folder.

  3. Conrad Devers says:

    The trouble with this opinion, (other than your obvious bias), is that you put to much emphasis on government jobs. Yes a lot are necessary but they are not income producing and need private sector taxes to exist. (Teachers and cops are not job doers but government servants providing a needed public function). Yes the private sector has to have rules and regulations as provided by our Constitution and by the laws that govern safety and fairness in the marketplace.

    As far as “Rightwing brainwashing” you must not be able to see past your liberal bias and see the influence of the MSM in their obvious fawning of the Liberal Left Wing agenda. The “Rich” pay 80% of the nations taxes (look it up), create the vast majority of middle income jobs and keep this economy going. Government does not create one single income producing job, only income negative ones.

    Your “Goebbels” comment is right out of the liberal lefts playbook. You should come up with a more constructive argument using your own thoughts instead of using vile accusations against an opposing idea. Your article reminds me of Chris Matthews call of racism against anything that opposes the left.

    In closing I am a retired “Blue Collar” worker, Viet Nam vet. I graduated from CCHS in 1964, I prefer organic to Monsanto produced garbage, like good public schools, without the influence of the NEA, and I hope none of my above words need to be “looked up”.

  4. It’s somehow comforting to know that Lord Don is sitting on his thrown, looking down benevolently upon and watching his kingdom of knuckle dragging serfs.

    And I must compliment Lord Don on his timing, submitting a letter which includes the assertion that a certain segment of the population is “brainwashed”.

    The just concluded DNC convention showed that he is right on the money.

    Observe. The lost voice vote to restore the word “God’ into the democrat platform


    The using of the term “Nazi” to describe anyone that disagrees with the leftist agenda


    (Personally, the first group I think of that hated God and the Jews were the Nazis. But hey, what do I know?)

    Here’s the Florida DNC chair showing how effect brainwashing can be, saying Christinas what Jews slaughtered.


    And here’s some more brainwashing with DNC delegates saying they want to ban coporate profits


    Here’s an awesome example of how brainwashing can effect a member of the “tolerant” and “peaceful” left

    Secret Service looks into delegate that threatens Romney


    And last but not least, an example not only of brainwashing, but outright mind wiping.

    Observe, a liberal, caught on film in her own habitat. Notice that while advocating for socialism, she’s standing in a captialist fast food restaurant


    So yes Lord Don, for once, you are correct.

    Man that was hard to say

    • Socialism and communism are two entirely different systems. I may be mistaken, but I’m getting the impression you’re confusing the two. Socialism and capitalism aren’t mutually exclusive, but your comment on the woman in restaurant leads me to believe you think they are.

      Please excuse my confusion.

      • No real confusion. Perhaps I worded something poorly. I posted a link in which a woman (A DNC delegate BTW) was advocating that the primary political idealology in the US should be socialism. SHe then went on to rant about slaves and race and some distorted history that only herself and Rosco would be proud of.

        The irony was that she was spouting all of that in a restaurant that was created by capitalism.

        • Thank you. Perhaps I myself was not clear when I stated socialism and capitalism can (and do) exist side by side, so I fail to see why her talking of socialism in a restaurant created by capitalism is of consequence. No matter. I appreciate your response.

        • I left a response to your response, but it seems to have fallen into the next dimension or disappeared somewhere. But that’s okay because I think I’ve sorted this out. Or I may have gotten this wrong. Let me know.

          I think when you say socialism you’re referring to Marxist socialism, which is more closely linked to communism and would explain why you would consider the woman’s venue for her remarks ironic. In that circumstance I would too. But there are many forms of socialism, and Marxist socialism should not be linked to the Democratic party because that is certainly NOT what they are advocating. Seriously, it is not.

          Liberal socialism focuses more on service, cooperation and social justice (and not on eliminating capitalism). I was using that definition because the Democrats are proponents of a more equitable opportunity for all. That’s why I was confused – same word, different definitions.

          Have a beautiful Sunday and remember: We may be on opposite sides of the fence, but we don’t have to be enemies. Civil discourse can be very productive and foster understanding. Let’s keep it positive and peaceful. (And I’m not just talking to you, Sarge. I mean all of us.)

      • ElinorDashwood says:

        You are not Clueless, confused or mistaken, you are absolutely correct. Canada has put socialism and capitalism together and is now richer than the US and their incomes are higher.


        • Canada isn’t the only country to integrate both.

          My moniker stems from my almost total unawareness of contemporary culture as I don’t watch TV (no bombardment by political ads – yay!) or movies.

          And the comment I thought had disappeared is now back. I really am Clueless at times.

          • just the facts..PLEASE says:

            You are correct…..most of Europe is also entangled in the quasi-socialist web AND most of Europe is, or on the verge of being bankrupt……you would think we could learn from this.

            Canada has a relatively small population and vast natural resources to provide much of the funding for their little slice of socialist heaven.

          • We all have lots to learn.

            I’ll probably never understand the complexities of economics, but the economic downturn is worldwide and not just affecting social democratic countries. I’m not really qualified to comment further.

        • Elinor….one thing you forgot to mention…we have a Constitution that prescribes the rules for government here in the US. We are a democratic republic, our government is supposed to protect the individual liberties of its’ citizens, not take them away.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            Yes dirk, we are a democratic republic. This is where the differences lie, the current administration wants to keep the “democratic” in our government, the candidates that want to get in office want to drop the “democratic’ part and become strictly a republic.
            “We are a democratic republic, our government is supposed to protect the individual liberties of its’ citizens, not take them away.” -dirk
            The republican party has no problem taking away an individual’s liberties if it suits them like women, the elderly, people of different religions, children of the poor and people with a different sexual orientation.

            “The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”

            The constitution wasn’t written just so citizens can keep their guns.

          • Another View says:

            Please name one (1) “right” that the Republican Party wishes to take away from anyone. Just 1!

            Because your accusation is a damnable lie. The political party who seeks, and who historically has sought, to curb individual liberty is the so-called Democrat Party.

            And we are merely a republic. The word “democratic” does not appear in the Constitution.

          • Elinor…I would agree in part. There are some examples of Republicans trying to make laws and invade our personal liberty, but I would argue that Democrats examples far outweigh in number and severity.

            Please explain to me the liberties Republicans are taking away with regard to “women, the elderly, people of different religions, children of the poor and people with a different sexual orientation.” Please be specific….can’t wait for your response.

            By the way, I’m aware of the abortion issue…it’s a heavy one…I’m not in favor of killing babies but I am not in favor of laws banning the practice. If a woman wants to abort a baby and pay for it herself, I’m not sure there’s much we can do about it.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            dirk, you have already addressed one of the issues. I am not pro-abortion but I don’t believe anyone has a right to tell anyone what they can do with their bodies. The real problem in my eyes is that once these fetus’s are babies, and perhaps born into poverty, do the republicans care about them anymore? Is it their fault if their mother is on welfare? The same welfare that Paul Ryan wants to get rid of?
            The right to freedom of religion comes up all the time with republicans, as in there is no other that counts in America but Christianity. They screamed and hollered about GOD and the dems platform. By the way, I am a christian but not one that believes in hate.
            Mitt and Paul want to give the elderly a voucher system that has no chance of working, at least not to the individual’s benefit, maybe corporate purses though.
            As far as gay rights… I happen to have lesbian daughter that is 25 years old. I know for a fact that her sexual orientation wasn’t a choice and that there was no traumatic event that caused her to be “that” way. I love my children unconditionally and I hope that she can have the same rights to love and marry, that my two straight kids have.
            I have tried to be specific, dirk. I don’t mind polite discourse and debate when asked without being attacked personally. Which is why you are the one that received a response.

          • “…I happen to have lesbian daughter that is 25 years old….” How convenient. A “husband” in the “military”, a “lesbian daughter”, and “two straight kids”. Wow. you have everything, so you must know it all. I bet you even raise cattle.


          • ElinorDashwood says:

            RW, I don’t know what your issues are with me. What does “how convenient”, mean?? Everything I have posted about myself is absolutely true, including the fact that my house sits on a half acre lot. Some of my close friends know who Elinor Dashwood is and would tell you that I am an honest person, whether posting under my own name or Elinor.
            And yes, I live a grateful life and feel that I do indeed have everything.

          • Right. Just like the book.

            Too many liars around here.

          • Oh my, “Roscoe” coming to the defense of dear “Elinor”. Spare me.

            Nature intends for the continuation of the species. Homosexuality goes against that because homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE WITH EACH OTHER.

            Again, the “two” of you can use all the big words you want. I understand all of them. But not everyone else does. So why use them? Just to make yourselves appear intelligent and above those who do not “speak your language”? To strike down those who do not speak like you is the very thing you accuse me of.

            I don’t tolerate liars. I don’t lie. I don’t associate with liars. Liars can NEVER be trusted.

            I post under one name, and ALWAYS have.

            And for the record, all of my teammates liked me, and I them. I was their goalie most of the time. The only reason I played right wing was because my wrist got broken on a save. I finished the game as goalie. I had to play right wing afterwards because it’s hard to play goalie with a cast on your arm. I also am very proud that I never had a penalty kick get past me in all my years as goalie, and there were several attempts.

          • Elinor…
            Let me respond to your comments:
            “The real problem in my eyes is that once these fetus’s are babies, and perhaps born into poverty, do the republicans care about them anymore?”
            – It is not the responsibility of the republicans to “care about them”. People have a responsibility, not government. Their family, friends, the local community, churches, etc. should help those who are less fortunate or come upon hard times. Those closest too them can have a greater impact and can also determine the need. Plus, realize that you cannot do good with someone else’s money…the government first has to steal it from me to give to someone else.

            “The right to freedom of religion comes up all the time with republicans, as in there is no other that counts in America but Christianity. They screamed and hollered about GOD and the dems platform. By the way, I am a christian but not one that believes in hate”
            – I’m not sure what your point is here…I don’t know what “hate” you are talking about. Please explain.

            “Mitt and Paul want to give the elderly a voucher system that has no chance of working, at least not to the individual’s benefit, maybe corporate purses though”
            – Again, not exactly sure what you are saying here. The government doesn’t have the prescribed power to “give” money to anyone. And why is someone more entitled to my labor then me? I think the elderly are entitled to what they have earned and what their families, friends and other community members want to provide them. Once again, the government was established by people to protect their individual liberty and property…this includes my labor and earnings.

            “As far as gay rights… I happen to have lesbian daughter that is 25 years old. I know for a fact that her sexual orientation wasn’t a choice and that there was no traumatic event that caused her to be “that” way. I love my children unconditionally and I hope that she can have the same rights to love and marry, that my two straight kids have”
            – Sounds like we differ greatly on this issue. I believe orientation is a choice. When a black person wakes up in the morning, they will always be black, but with regard to sexual orientation, there are plenty of cases of folks changing their orientation, in both directions. Remember, just because we want to do something, doesn’t mean we can. I believe there is absolute truth, and their is “right” and “wrong”.

            Thanks for your comments.

          • Homosexuality is a choice. It is against nature.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            There are whole swaths of humanity that you hate, aren’t there?

            The current president, for sure. Heck, likely every president.

            And, gays of every stripe; politicians, professors, lawyers; every human who ever told a lie, (even if it was necessary for survival itself); and, of course, everybody who is an intellectual, or even a smidge smarter than you (my guess, that’s most all of us right there.)

            Tell me, were you able to get along with your left winger? The fullbacks? Anybody else among your teammates?

            You even took a cheap shot or two at Elinor. For what? Opening up and being honest? Even at the risk of setting herself up for some other (and smarter) cheap shot artist?

            Grow up. Get out of Clarke County. The world’s not homogeneous, you know. Oh. You may want to look that one up. It may sound swishy to you.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            RW, it would be nice for you to come up with an erudite response that equals more than your one or two sentence quips, or your ‘what he said’ agreements with AV.
            While you can use your argument that human homosexuality goes against the bible… scientifically and biologically, you are incorrect to say homosexuality “is against nature”. I think you should take another tack because ‘nature’ says otherwise.

            And dirk? What makes you think that a black person would want to wake up and be anything but black? Thank you for your comments, your statement betrays your prejudices.

            http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspxion to sexual orientation

            Thanks, Roscoe.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            Dear CDN. the web address I attached below came out wrong for some reason, this is the correct one. Thanks.


          • Another View says:


            You accuse Republicans of taking away peoples’ rights, I call that accusation a damnable lie, and you are the one who is attacked? Please. If you cannot take it, quit dishing it out.

            There is no right to abortion. More accurately, there is no right to murder children. Yet the Democrat party embraces the mass murder of children, all under the euphemism of “choice”. A

            Conservative and Republican Christians do not believe in “hate”. Far from it. Yet another baseless accusation–from you. The facts reveal that it is the Left and the Democrat party that wage war on religion generally, and Christianity specifically. From banning prayer in the public square, forcing Catholics to provide free contraception and abortion services, secularizing Christmas, etc.–it is the Democrat Party who attacks religion.

            As for homosexuals, they have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. The truth is, no one–heterosexual or homosexual–has a right to marry someone of the same sex. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. And while I am glad that you love your daughter, homosexuality is a choice, a sexual perversion that is contrary to Christianity. There is NO scientific evidence to suggest that people are born to behave that way.

            Your accusation against Republicans is false. They are not acting to prey on the “elderly”, “women”, “children”, etc. to take away “rights”. That is just so much propaganda.

            It is okay to argue vehemently your beliefs. But it is wrong and cowardly to engage in such hateful hyperbole.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            “As for homosexuals, they have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. The truth is, no one–heterosexual or homosexual–has a right to marry someone of the same sex. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.” – AV

            So explain why so many individuals in such high places can’t seem to change their orientation even when they hold a public office, are married to someone of the opposite sex and speak out against homosexuality.

            Mark Foley, U.S. Representative-Sending instant messages and e-mails of a sexual nature to teenaged boys in the Congressional page program for more than 10 years. The Hypocrisy of it, he was the Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and one of the foremost opponents of child pornography in the Senate.

            Ted Haggard, Leader of the National Association of Evangelicals- Paying male prostitutes for sex and using crystal meth. The Hypocrisy of it, he was a powerful force in the evangelical movement, Haggard participated in weekly meetings with President George Bush where he gave spiritual advice. He taught that homosexuality was an abomination and actively lobbied against gay rights.

            Larry Craig, U.S. Senator and Senate Liason for Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign- soliciting sex from a male undercover cop in an airport bathroom and have had many more men come out to say they have had sexual relations with him. The Hypocrisy of it, Craig voted more than once against adding the words “sexual orientation” to the federal hate crimes law. Craig also voted to give states the right to refuse to recognize gay marriage–a right they already had, but the Senator wanted to really, really prove he didn’t like gay people. Ironic, isn’t it?

            Bob Allen, Florida House of Representatives and Florida Chairman of John McCain’s Presidential Campaign- offering an undercover cop $20 to allow Allen to, well… look it up. The Hypocrisy of it, Allen was one of 21 Florida legislators to sign Gov. Jeb Bush’s friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state’s ban on gays adopting children, and he co-sponsored an unsuccessful bill that would have enhanced penalties for “offenses involving unnatural and lascivious acts” such as indecent exposure.

            Glenn Murphy Jr., National Chairman of the Young Republicans, Chairman of the Clark County Republican Party- got a fellow Young Republican drunk and then spent the night at his house. The other young man woke up in the middle of the night to find Murphy, well… look it up yourself. After this incident, a 1998 sexual battery report came to light in which Murphy was alleged to have done the exact same thing to someone else. The Hypocrisy of it, Murphy was a well-paid political consultant for Republican candidates and often advised them to use gay marriage as a wedge issue to paint their opponents as out of touch with traditional values.

            All facts, by the way.

          • Well let’s reduce the complexity of the discussion and look at your assertion from a very simple perspective.

            As a Christian do you believe in creation or as a christian do you believe in evolution?

            If you are a follower of Christ you know that God designed us purposefully, and that the Bible lays out very clearly why we are designed the way we are and how we are to live. So God did not create anyone with a default “orientation” to defy His own design. Therefore if you are a creationist the end of the road for a biological disposition to homosexuality is False.

            But let’s say you are a christian who believes in Darwinian evolution. If you believe that aberrant genetic mutations that represent advancement of the species are retained through a long line of successful reproductions, then if homosexuality is not a choice (i.e. it is genetic) it would have been necessarily eradicated from the gene pool so long ago that none of us would ever have known what it was. It can not result in progeny so it would end immediately after each manifestation of the genetic mutation. So if you are a evolutionist the end of the road for a biological disposition to homosexuality is False as well.

            It is pretty clear that it is a choice, it is just one that is arrived at by incremental decisions, not one big life altering momentary decision. After all people make all sorts of bad decisions that we can’t blame on genetics.

          • Another View says:

            You might as well ask why is there sin? Man is weak and imperfect. Some folks act badly in some ways, others act badly in other ways. Everyone sins. Homosexual conduct is a sin, beastiality is a sin, murder is a sin, adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, lying is a sin, etc.

            What causes homosexuality to stand out is multifaceted. But it does not matter. Homosexual conduct is to be condemned, not celebrated. People who engage in homosexual conduct should not be hated or condemned, but rather loved, and assisted in turning their back on their evil ways. We would surely assist a liar or an adulterer in putting their life back on track, and we should do the same with the homosexual.

            We are all flawed. But it is evil to pretend that a flaw is something else. You are doing harm to the miscreant by doing so.

          • The fact is, homosexuality is deviant behavior, and against nature. Those folks you just referenced choose to behave in a deviant way, just like Barney Frank and his ilk choose to behave. They are vile human beings.

          • Another view –

            There actually is a “right to abortion” – you must not be familiar with Roe v. Wade. Though the bible does not mention abortion, it is fine that you interpret your religion to prohibit abortion – I respect that. In the United States we are guaranteed freedom of religion though; as we are not a theocracy you cannot force someone who is not of your religion to follow your religious laws. I would suspect you would not have a desire to follow the tenets Hinduism were a Hindu elected President one day? I would not classify letting a woman choose what to do with her body (in lieu of a male in Washington, DC) as “embracing the murder of children” – you put your whole argument into question when you make such inflamatory statements.

            As for your comments that homosexuality is a choice, do you mind me asking when you chose to be a heterosexual? Was there a point you were considering being a homosexual, but decided “ehh I suppose I’ll choose to instinctually be attracted to the opposite sex instead”? If only the thousands of GLBT teenagers who commit suicide each year knew that they just had to wake up in the morning and decide to be straight. I’m sure they just preferred to be bullied and depressed. Maybe they were just too lazy to change eh? How exactly will the marriage of two adults of the same sex affect you? Will it cause you to make a ‘choice’ to become gay? Will you love your spouse less? Will you have to spend 5 minutes telling your children that sometimes two people of the same sex love eachother? By the way you should read some of the multitude of scientific studies on homosexual animals…how smart they must be to have the cognitive ability to choose their sexuality!

            It seems like Republicans are for individual rights…except when it comes for women to make their healthcare decisions, adults deciding who they want to marry, etc. – basically ‘individuality is what America is all about…except when we don’t agree with it”.

          • Tha’s pretty funny. Until you look at the democrats on the issues

            They’re for killing babies. In some cases, like with Obama, after they’ve been born. And yet they’re against the death penalty for adult scum bags.

            They are for free speech, unless it’s a view that’s not like theirs. Then there’s Occupy, and shout downs, and protests.

            They are for freedom of religion, until it’s done in schools. Say the name “Jesus” in government run schools and the party’s over. Mohammed’s OK though.

            They are all about “separation of church and state”, which is not in the Constitution, until it’s time to force religious schools to provde birth control to women that don’t want to pay for it themselves.

            Shall I go on?

          • “Yes dirk, we are a democratic republic. This is where the differences lie, the current administration wants to keep the “democratic” in our government, the candidates that want to get in office want to drop the “democratic’ part and become strictly a republic.”

            Actualy, we’re a representative republic, not a “democratic” republic or a democracy. Perhaps you should read up a bit before pretending to know what others think or what they will do once in office

        • And, under the “leadership” of Owe-Bama, the US is about to lose our stellar credit rating.

          BO refuses to work WITH CONGRESS, refuses to COMPROMISE. Woodward’s new book shows this.

          • Right Winger –

            What compromise did the Republicans offer exactly? “Owe-Bama” offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue – the Republicans refused to raise even one penny of new revenue. Say what you want about what you think of the end result of the deal, but I do not think you can say the Republicans tried to compromise. Regan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, Bush raised it 7 times…where was the Republican outrage then?

            Here is the citation for the debt ceiling info I mentioned:


          • Another View says:

            NOBODY offered $10 in spending cuts in exchange for raising taxes $1. That was a hypothetical question put to the Republican candidates during a primary debate. You are just making things up; that or you are quoting Stephanie Cutter, a proven liar. So . . . the same thing.

          • Glad you mentioned debates. Can’t wait until 9pmOct. 3rd. (Redacted)

    • Fly on the wall says:
      • Those are all great. And if they had been taken at the RNC convention, you’d have an issue.

        I mean really, you want to go out into the field, there are infinite possibilities for both sides. Shall I post some “Death to the troops” pictures from San FranSicko leftist peace marches?

        Everything I posted happened at the DNC convention.

        Let’s try to stay focued here

    • My 2 Cents says:

      If they choose not to use God in their platform so be it. Don’t vote for them. Must you get on both the CDN and Winchester Star websites and post the same thing everyday? Why does the right have to feel obligated to be cheerleaders for their side?

      • He says the same things every day for one reason: Pavlov. Repeat, repeat, repeat, someone might actually believe it. Same with Rush, Hannity, and Chris Matthews.

        Both sides have plenty of dirty linen from the campaign and the convention, but who really has time to post link upon link to both of them. You don’t like what you saw? Don’t vote for that person.

        I basically liked what I saw at the DNC, basically didn’t think the RNC had a message and plenty of lies to boot.

        But, at the end of the day, links don’t elect Presidents. One has to think for oneself.

        • just the facts..PLEASE says:

          If “one” is buying what the DNC was selling at the convention …….than “one” is not doing a whole lot of THINKING for “oneself”.

  5. The line between genius and insanity is very thin. As evidenced by this editorial.

  6. Thank you Mr. Marro for another attack piece faxed to you via the WH. Why the attacks? Let’s talk about Obama’s accomplishments. His “vision” and his “ideas” we hear so much about. Remember his great job plan of last summer? The one he delayed two months due to vacations, then his flying around Canadian buses on tax paid aircraft to the mid west so that he could continue his campaigning from 2008? Let me go check the numbers and see how well that worked out!
    Why does he let America suffer if he has all these great fixes? So he let us bleed for four years so he can now implement the big fix? Kinda like Mao or the Khmer Rouge’s plan, ain’t it? Destroy it so it can be rebuilt in one man’s image?
    Continue with your lies Mr. Marro, and your attacks – we know the propaganda machine of the White House when we see it.

    • Kinda like the Fox News propaganda coming from PineGrove! Did you think he could fix this mess in 4 years? [redacted]

      • Reaagan did. He took Jimmy Carters recession, which was just as bad as this one, and by the end of four years had unemployment down to around 7% and the GDP going around 8%.

        Of course, he didn’t golf as much as Obama either

      • Another View says:

        Ronald Reagan fixed a far worse mess in much less time.

        If Barack Hussein Obama wanted to actually “fix” this mess, he easily could have done so. But his goal is to impose a fascist remake of America on the populace. And that will indeed take more than 4 years.

        • Another View –

          Why did you invoke Obama’s middle name but not call Reagan “Ronald Wilson Reagan”? Is it because Hussein sounds funny? Obama isn’t like us, he’s different, he must hate America. Funny how someone who hates America so much ordered a strike on Bin Laden and is systematically dismantling Al Quaeda via drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen (by the way both McCain and Romney said in 2008 that they would not strike in Pakistan and Yemen).

          The definition of facism according to Websters is: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

          Could you please tell me how Obama is implementing facism? He is a dictatorial leader who is engaged in forcible suppression of the opposition? I must’ve missed it when he started arresting republicans and abolished term limits. He puts nation and race above the individual? I thought he hated America…interesting how he can hate it so much yet trumpet the nation. Perhaps his ‘severe economic regimentation’ was when he successfully bailed out the auto industry or implemented a healthcare plan that covers those with pre-existing conditions and lets those under 25 stay on their parent’s healthcare plan (Romney embraced both of those ideas on Meet the Press on Sunday). Oh the humanity of this evil dictator!

          • Another View says:

            Barack Hussein Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was not successful. He put $85 billion into two companies whose maximum capital worth was $15 billion. He violated the bankruptcy laws by cheating the bondholders and secured creditors. He left the non-union workers high and dry, while protecting the union workers. The companies’ main operations are overseas, and they both continue to bleed money. GM loses $49k per Volt, which no one buys.

            Solyndra, Fisker, healthcare, AIG, banks, the auto companies–all are being treated as in fascist Italy and Germany, where ownership remained nominally in private hands, but were regulated by government to the point of essentially being a utility. All of this is an economic disaster, and all of it is unconstitutional.

            $6 trillion dollars in new debt in less than three (3) years, more folks on food stamps and other relief than ever before, 89 million people have left the workforce, yet unemployment remains above 8%–how can you possibly ask me how Obama is implementing fascism? How can you possibly think that he has been successful at doing anything other than destroying the United States?

          • Hi Ryan, you are late to the extreme hatred of AV. His reason for using the POTUS’s middle name, is that is because the President used it himself at his inauguration. He steadfastly ignores that the right wing haters (who apparently do not exist according to some of his rhetoric today) used it “religiously” to imply some kind of muslim connection. Of course, they did not educate themselves into the middle name’s full meaning, which means “good.”

            Since he says he “knew” Ronald Reagan, I doubt such buddies need to use each other’s middle name.

            You will now be labeled as Unamerican, a sheeple, a taker, and a fascist lover. He and his kind do not understand they are promoting fascism and hate. Maybe not admitting how they are promoting that, I think they well understand what they are doing.

            But you will be comforted that this person says he reads numerous newspapers every day, as well as gets some kind of important “briefings”, one can only suppose from Sarah Palin.

            As far as I can read, people like him are only an endorsement for President Obama. So we let him keep at it without trying to argue too much, except for the most blatant propaganda.

          • Another View says:

            I promote free markets and freedom. The Left promotes fascism, because it believes 1) all money belongs to the State in the first instance; and, 2) government is best suited to make spending decisions for individuals.

            My belief is that everyone should be free to pursue their dreams, whatever those may be, so long as they are not infringing upon others rights. The Left believes that everyone should be free to pursue their dreams, so long as the government approves, and that they are not too successful. Because in Barack Hussein Obama’s USA, being “rich” and successful are bad, while being dependent upon government is good.

            I never claimed that my briefings were “important”, but I do get paid to receive them, and to utilize that information for my clients’ benefit. And while I knew Ronald Reagan, I also never claimed to be buddies.

            You and others hate the successful. Why not turn that hate into energy directed at achieving your own success, and quit living as takers, off the labors of others?

          • “My belief is that everyone should be free to pursue their dreams, whatever those may be, so long as they are not infringing upon others rights. ” -AV
            You are not speaking the truth. You are against gay marriage, which infringes on no one’s rights. It just offends you.

          • Another View says:

            There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

            What the proponents of so called “gay marriage” are trying to do is to destroy marriage as an institution, marginalize Christian faith, and force the acceptance of their perverted lifestyle on America. It is the homosexuals who are the aggressors, trying to destroy Christians’ rights.

            Homosexuality is a sin. I do not condone it. But I am not trying to go out, round ’em up and stone them. If you want to engage in this unnatural conduct, have at it. But keep it to yourself. Quit shoving it in my face.

            And while I am offended by homosexuality, so are millions of Americans, and other peoples around the world. Christians, Muslims and Jews are offended by homosexuality. God is offended by homosexuality. I speak the truth.

          • You forget gay Christians are out there. Some in the clergy. I’m sure that God forgives them, and btw, no homosexual is throwing anything in your face if you’d just shut up and let them be.

            I’m glad you can use Muslims for your cause in this regard however.

            Gays really just want equal rights by way of tax deductions, hospital visitation, etc. They pay the same taxes you do, thus, they are to be treated equally. They also defend us in the military, they take care of us as doctors and nurses, and I might add their might be a few lawyers in the mix as well.

          • wow… now you’re speaking for the Muslims and the Jews? Do they know this?

  7. Another Another View says:

    Reagan had one big difference; a Congress that passed his tax increases to put his programs in place. The obstructionists on both sides of the aisle are killing this country. Representatives need to start representing a greater percentage of their electorate than just the 51% that put them in office. I think we sorely need term limits and finance reform. Term limits would get rid of nutbags like Pelosi and posturing dim bulbs like Cantor at the same time which might lead to our elected officials actually getting something done.

    • Another View says:

      Ronald Reagan’s success domestically was due to his achieving legislative success in TAX CUTS, not tax increases. Reagan did–to his lasting regret–agree to sign on to some tax increases in 1982 in exchange for spending cuts, a 3-1 deal. The tax increases happened, but the spending cuts never materialized, because the DEMOCRATS LIED.

      When Reagan revisited taxes in 1986, it was to work to enact tax reform, which eliminated many deductions, but lowered rates, making the tax code fairer and simpler. Since he left office, however, the DEMOCRATS RAISED TAXES, and wish to continue to do so.

      The fact is, the economy is hurt–not helped–by high taxes and regulation. We need to slash government spending, regulations and tax rates. Let the American people lead, and the economy will soar.

  8. Wow, I actually agree with you re. Pelosi and Cantor. And term limits.

  9. It’s interesting to me to see how the adorers can not see that obama has not tried even ONCE to cooperate with the House or Senate. For two years he had both and essentially used them to line his own pockets with the corporate buy outs. Reagan and yes, even Clinton (thanks in large part to Gingrich) had the common sense (leadership) to reach out and compromise and get things done. One of obama’s worst failures is his absolute lack of leadership. Mostly (imho) due to the fact that he has no clear idea of what needs to be done or how to do it. He hasn’t had a plan since he came into office and the additional $6 trillion in debt, lowered credit ranking, HIGH unemployment, lower number of people paying taxes, more people on the dole are proof. I know those facts are avoided in the main stream media – but folks, obama owns this! Tired of hearing it will take more than four years. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t he say if he couldn’t do the job he’d leave? Well – time to walk back across the pond Mr. obama.

  10. lovethisplace says:

    Speaking about loving Christians who never spew hate How about Jerry Falwell telling us gays were the cause of 9-11; Has he apologized in 11 years?

    “I am fighting for the work of the lord.” Ronald Reagan
    “I am fighting for the work of the lord”, George W Bush April 11, 2002
    “I am fighting for the work of the lord”, Adolph Hitler, the Mein Kampf
    “I am fighting for the work of the lord.” Tom DeLay

    Awful lot of fighting going on for a peaceful liberal guy, the Lord.

    • Another View says:

      Manufactured quotes and drawing a moral equivalence between Presidents Reagan and Bush, Rep. DeLay and Adolph Hitler is just repugnant. Do you not have anything interesting to write?

      And Jerry Falwell is dead. Read a newspaper.

      Why oh why does the Left love the Nazi analogy? I don’t get it.

  11. Another View says:

    Someone, somewhere, put a video on YouTube, which offended a Muslim cleric. The Arab response was to attack our embassies in Cairo and Tripoli, killing our ambassador. The Barack Hussein Obama response? Apologize for offending Islam. All while snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister and scheduling an appearance on the Letterman show.

    No, Barack Hussein Obama is not a Muslim. No, Barack Hussein Obama is a strong leader and foreign policy wiz.

    How about just NO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA? Yes.

    • “I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives. I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants,” President Obama said in a statement.

      • Another View says:

        That was the government’s THIRD statement. The fact is, President Barack Hussein Obama made the decision to abandon our ally, Mubarack, and to support the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya. The result is the radicalization of these countries, the strengthening of our enemies, the invasion of sovereign US territory, and the death of now four (4) American officials.

        Barack Hussein Obama’s appeasement of the Muslim world is a danger to the United States. He was wrong on Iraq, Egypt and Libya, he is wrong on Syria, he is wrong on Israel, and he is wrong on Iran. According to Barack Hussein Obama, America is just a pleasant little country on the UN roster, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe (full credit to G. H. W. Bush). Well that is horse hockey. Like it or not, the world requires US leadership, as does our national security. And Barack Hussein Obama is no leader.

        • I am talking about the President’s statement, not some “tweeting” by low level hacks who sent stuff without approval, but, whatever rocks your boat.

          I am personally glad that the terrorist Ghadaffi is dead. And that we are out of Iraq, which we should never have been in. Israel has enough nuclear weapons, supplied by our tax dollars I might add, to take out anyone. They don’t need us. They’ve fed on our teet for long enough.

          I am leaning towards agreeing with you on Syria, but not Iran.Tho I also lean with letting them duke it out with each other. Leadership is more than tossing bombs.

          But take heart! If Willard Mittens Romney wins, he will have a busy first day in attacking Syria, Iran, thus giving the contractors jobs, as well as partially dismantling ACA, but not all of it, unless he’s changed his mind again.

          • Another View says:

            Who do you think appointed the “low level hacks” who released the first statement. HINT: Barack Hussein Obama.

            And it is Barack Hussein Obama who gave a speech worthy of Neville Chamberlain in his first foreign policy address at the Alexandria, Egypt library, praising Islam, and apologizing for American “wrongs”. It is Barack Hussein Obama who made the decision to abandon Mubarack, turning Egypt over to our enemies.

            And it is Barack Hussein Obama who spends more time attending fundraisers and playing golf than attending National Security Briefings. Do you think there might be a correlation between his demonstrated priorities and events from yesterday? I do.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            “In the past 10 years alone, Americans have given Israel the equivalent of approximately $200,000 per Israeli family of five. In addition, there have been weapons subsidies, loan forgiveness programs, special trade preferences, and other generous gifts from American taxpayers to Israel. In fact, despite being one of the world’ smallest nations, Israel receives more U.S. tax money than any other country.”

            “On top of this, a multitude of organizations contributing money and assistance to Israel have been given tax-deductible status in the U.S., removing still more money from the American economy. For example, donations to the “Birthright Israel” program that takes Jewish American students on fun-filled holidays to Israel, convincing many to then “ascend” to Israeli citizenship, are deducted from taxes owed to the U.S.”

            “The Jerusalem Post article also neglected to mention Israel’s attack on a U.S. Navy ship that killed and injured approximately 200 Americans and caused the ship to be scrapped. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Israel termed this a “mistake” and gave the U.S. $6 million “compensation” for a ship valued at $40 million.”

            Read the article in it’s entirety here.

            So if people in America living off of the public tax dollars are ‘takers’, by AV’s definition. What does that make the nation of Israel? I agree with you on all points, Griffen.

          • A strategic ally in the region? Of course, Obama doesn’t care about traditional allies, just the muslims. Funny he ditched Netenyhu (sp) because he was busy, but has time to go on Letterman

            55 days

          • A “strategic” ally that we’ve bought and paid for. The first Bush handled them correctly. His son, not so much.

            I would say the current prime minister there is about as much a nut case yahoo extremist as those that carried out last night’s attack.

      • Blah, blah, blah. Time to go golfing.

        Why aren’t there F-18’s flying over Benghazi right now Mr President? Why aren’t there Reapers on station sending AIM missiles towards the barbarians and turning them into a fine, red mist? I GUARANTEE our intel people know who did this. And yet…………..nothing but words from Mr Apology.

        THIS is why the US supports dictators in the region, because otherwise there is either chaos or the powers that rise up are anti- American, as demonstrated in Egypt and Libya. Most adults with any kind of foreign policy background know this.

        YOU, Mr President, are directly responsible for our ambassadors death. You and your stupid policy of appeasement toward people that cannot be appeased. Had YOU stayed out of the Libya mess, which our own Sec Def Robert Gates said we had no national interests in, this man and the other embassy workers would still be alive today

        Oh, an you’re not off the hook either Mrs Clinton

        • Perhaps, had Obama actually attended more than half of his Presidential Daily Briefings, instead of trying to ASS U ME he knows everything, he might have been warned about this possiblity and pulled out people out.

          Wonder which embassy gets whacked next? Wonder how many hostages they’ll take……………..Jimmy?

          • What is your response to these:

            June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

            Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

            Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.

            Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.

            Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.

            Where was the outrage, Sarge?

        • No blame for the maker of the film?

          An Israeli filmmaker based in California went into hiding after a YouTube trailer of his movie attacking Islam’s prophet Muhammad sparked angry assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American members of his staff were killed.

          Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

          He did this with Jewish monetary support.

          • Another View says:


            Ever hear of the 1st Amendment? It’s in the Constitution.

          • Fly on the wall says:

            Since when is it an “American ideal” to insult another group or religion merely “because we can”? Aren’t we better than that? Or, aren’t we supposed to be better than that? Besides…is the filmmaker an American, or an Israeli, or an Egyptian Christian with some wack ideas? Whatever his case, the movie is decidedly poor in taste, lacking in judgement, and he rightfully should be in hiding.

            The tragedy is that good, decent people died because of his incredible stupidity.

          • Another View says:

            No one died “because of his incredible stupidity.” Americans died at the hands of Muslim terrorists who planned to kill Americans on 9-11, and succeeded in doing so.

            And he should not “rightfully . . . be in hiding.” No one should fear for their lives or safety in this country due to their expression, which is protected by our Constitution. Maybe in other countries, but in America, we are free to speak our peace, whatever others may think of our opinions.

          • Supposing the filmmaker made a film about homosexuality, encouraging all teens to “try it both ways” so they can make an informed decision as to what orientation they are and posted it on YouTube, instead of the film that he made. Would you still be supporting his right to make the film or would you be outraged?

            What the filmmaker did was with the purpose to incite Muslims to act against Americans and Christians. When they find the man that made the film, I hope he’s tried for the murders of the Americans in Libya.

          • Another View says:

            I do not care what the content of the film is/was/will be–the maker’s expression is protected under our Constitution. Why should the disapproval of some, even all, outweigh his right to free speech?

            The filmmaker did not “incite” anyone. Radical Muslims maintain an agenda against the West, and the film had no role in the implementation of that agenda.

            Your “hope” that he is tried for murder reveals the Left’s true view of the Constitution, tolerance, diversity, and free speech; that is, you are all for it, so long as you agree with it and can control it. But when someone expresses something with which you disagree, the LEFT becomes apoplectic, demanding silence, the imposition of speech codes, and in your example, imprisonment.

            Such a system as you envision existed once–in the Soviet Union. How sad for you that it lies on the ash heap of history.

          • He surely did mean to incite ……

            his statement from yesterday, my caps.

            Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile REMAINED DEFIANT, saying ISLAM IS A CANCER and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a PROVOCATIVE POLITICAL STATEMENT condemning the religion.

            Wow, his audience was the extremist group and he succeeded. Backed by Jewish dollars.

          • I love how libs are all about free speech. That is, until it runs contrarat to their views. Then it’s “String ’em up”, Occupy and shout downs

          • Wow that is one of the most unbelievably ridiculous comments I have heard from you.

            To give terrorists a pass for murder because someone made a movie they didn’t like?

            You should move there because here we have the First Amendment , and while there are constraints placed on the first amendment, like not yelling fire in a crowded theater, those restraints do not include preventing people from insulting someone and thereby giving them a free pass to go murder someone who had nothing to do with the actual thing they are angry about.

            You believe that the film-maker is responsible?

            So if a bunch of Christians had gone out and killed people because of the Davinci Code that would be alright?

            Wow, just wow…

          • I said blame him for the murders along with the terrorists. I’m sorry you didn’t understand that; When one deliberately sets out to “terrorize” I’m afraid I do not think free speech is an issue, sorry.

          • My comment wasn’t directed at you unless you are HL Mencken as well.

            HL Mencken said “What the filmmaker did was with the purpose to incite Muslims to act against Americans and Christians. When they find the man that made the film, I hope he’s tried for the murders of the Americans in Libya.”

            That comment is so inane and preposterous that it needs to be called out for what it is. A capitulation of the Constitution at the hands of liberal deconstructionists who want to tear down America.

          • I thought you were responding to me, sorry, but apparently HL and I agree.

            In response to your DaVinci code question, my opinion is that IF the makers of that movie intended, on purpose, to insult the Christian faith IN HOPES AND WITH INTENT TO MAKE A PROVOCATIVE POLITICAL STATEMENT condemning Christianity, and terrorists, under the guise of Christian faith, decided to attack and kill, then yes, the makers of the movie should be held accountable along with the murderers.

            Making a provocative political statement against any religion is wrong, wrong, wrong. Whoever does it. If it spawns violence, as this film did (which was intended, btw), the film maker is a criminal who is hiding under the guise of free speech.

            Politics and religion. Leave each other alone. Otherwise we’re back in the good old Crusades.

          • So what? Now we’re going to blame a film maker for a bunch of barbarians killing our ambassador?

            If you look, I believe this movie has been out since July. Where was their “outrage” then? Funny the PICKED the anniversary of September 11th, huh?

            And were the hell is the president? Oh, that’s right, off campaigning on the taxpayers dime.

            Where are the cruise missiles? The drones?

            Maybe Obama should ask himself, since he proclaims to be a fan, “What would Reagan do?”

          • Another View says:

            Reagan would not have to do anything, as the world took him seriously. Hence, when he assumed the oath of office, the Iranians let the hostages go, rather than face his wrath.

            Peace through strength is the answer, rather than Barack Hussein Obama’s peace through pandering. Does anyone notice that no one ever attacked Soviet embassies, and that the Russian embassies remain similarly unmolested? Anyone–Democrats?–ever wonder why that was/is?

          • I was once at an undisclosed location in the 80’s that started wit “L” an ended with “n”. Same place we were having people kidnapped for awhile. I remember one time that a Russian national was kidnapped by Hezzbo’s. Not long after there were embassy bullitens saying that there was a KGB build up in the area. And strangely enough, bad guys, high level bad guys, started showing up dead in back alleys with their doo dads stuffed in their mouths.

            Strangely enough, the Russian national was released . Hmmmmmmmm

          • Fly on the wall says:

            Hmmm…could it be because the USSR/Russia got bogged down in Afghanistan for nigh on a decade and regularly got their keisters handed to them in those mountains? The war in both Afghanistan and Iraq were spearheaded by America; the fool who made that movie used Israeli money and made it in America. Thus, America becomes the lightning rod and our embassies – stupidly, tragically, senselessly – were attacked and good, decent, innocent people were killed.

            However, your contention that Iran immediately freed the hostages “rather than face the wrath of Reagan” is highly simplistic, and laughably so.

            Nice way to parrot some GOP talking points, points that – btw – have begun to be walked back by John Sununu and others because Mitt the Twit grossly overstepped himself and blasted the Egyptian embassy’s initial comments that were issued BEFORE the other attacks and BEFORE anyone died. President Obama and Sec. fo State Clinton have come out forecefully, and I trust them to make the right decisions – which (thankfully) do NOT include turning attackers into “a fine red mist” as Sarge jingoistically called for.

          • Another View says:

            Mitt was absolutely correct in blasting the administrations’ apologies, and the subsequent remarks by Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Hussein Clinton were hardly ‘forcefull[]”. Both condemned religious bigotry first, drawing a moral equivalence between the film and the Muslim reaction. The statements were weak, indecisive, and unhelpful.

            Ronald Reagan’s mistake in Lebanon was participating in a multilateral peacekeeping mission. The result was tragic, and not repeated. Thereafter, President Reagan authorized unilateral US military actions when necessary and the results were successful. Case in point, after US planes bombed Tripoli, Colonel Ghadafy was silent for more than a decade, whereas before he was a terrorist agitator and lightning rod.

            And you can smirk, but the only reason our hostages left Tehran was the Ayatollahs’ fear of Reagan’s retribution.

            PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH is the only sure path.

          • Fly on the wall says:
          • Roscoe Evans says:

            President Reagan did absolutely nothing, other than talk, after 220 U.S. Marines, plus others, were murdered in their Beirut barracks in 1983.

            Regan established no lasting principles of his own, and followed no established foreign policy or precedent, in dealing with matters like this Libyan/Egyption eruption.

          • Incorrect again Roscoe. You really, really need a history book. I believe it was the battleship Iowa that stayed on station off the coast of Lebenon for a few weeks and shelled targets. THEN we left. Which is what we should have done in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

            And look up “The Line of Death” THAT was Reagans foreign policy towards islamists

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            I don’t need refreshers on “history” that I lived through, noncom, any more than I need your comic book claptrap on the Nazis, the Gestapo, or concentration camps that you tiptoed through as a tourist, decades after folks I know, including family members, were there for extended stays.

            President Reagan made a huge mistake respecting those U.S. Marines. I think the total was 241 dead Americans, and, nothing was done to avenge them, or to establish a coherent policy on dealing with the kinds of insane terrorists who are willing to kill like that.

            We had no policy under him, and none has been established since him, which is why all of this criticism about President Obama is just sound and fury. My hope is that these events will prompt our nation to take a reasoned, proportioned, and forceful course of action against the responsible parties; and that we will establish principles, policies, and procedures for future such actions.

            But, if you want to bluster, carry on, cause that’s all you have. My guess, you’d be happy to direct those drones any place in the Muslim world, because all you seem to want is blood.

            Meanwhile, just google “241 dead marines” and “Lebanon”, if you want to read a little history. Or, check this out:


            or, check out the court cases that awarded American families compensation from Iran for these events.

            I have to wonder what you read besides NRA pamphlets and Cabelas catalogues. I’m pretty sure you’ve also got the entire Classics Illustrated Library. I do, too. But, at some point, I started reading everything I could, even stuff from viewpoints that I do not admire. You’ve got to learn to read, and to try to grow up. It will be hard, I am sure.

            Oh–wrong battleship, wrong war.

          • I’m impressed Roscoe, you got something about history not right, but realized I was off. It was the New Jersey that shelled the Hezzbos.

            You’re starting to turn around

          • Another View says:

            The bombing of Tripoli. That action worked like a charm. Shut Ghadafy right up!

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            The bombing of Tripoli had nothing to do with the Marines killed in Lebanon (1983), and you know it. Three years later (1986), it was a response to a terrorist attack against U.S. military men off-duty in Europe.

            This AM, I see that 5 of 7 current comments are from you, which is remarkable, because you have nothing cogent to say. You just repeat yourself, like a masturbating schoolboy.

            The first I recall reading your nonsense, you were proclaiming that you personally were working on the overturning of “Obamacare,” and you guaranteed victory. You also made a proclamation, which I trust you have sought to bury under billions of electrons, about how you were in favor of the violent overthrow of a second Obama Administration.

            So, you were wrong about the affordable care act litigation and the Supreme Court, and the Constitution (along with most all matters pertaining to the law); and, you are a closest seditionist and proto-terrorist.

            You’ve got no credibility, except for Soviet-style agitprop, wrapped up in the language of the red-white-and-blue.

            Keep it up, though. Self pleasure is the best you can get.

          • “Where are the cruise missiles? The drones? ”

            I think we may have found a couple here.

          • Yup, hot outrage at an opponent, based on lies, exaggerations, and out-of-context quotes. The drones that engage in these tactics know all too well that the average low-information voter won’t take the time to research the facts, preferring instead to be spoon fed their opinions from whatever media outlet confirms their prejudices. That includes Mr. Romney, Sarge, Rush, and our beloved fascist and muslim hater.

          • Fly on the wall says:


            Well, Sarge…the brass are taking the right and appropriate steps. And…it’s great to see the Libyans rising up to protest the senseless attack and murders.


            So, spare us your bluster and bravado.

        • “YOU, Mr President, are directly responsible for our ambassadors death.”

          So with your logic, the blame for all the deaths on 9/11 should be on Bush. Right?

          • No, I blame that on Clinton, who for years could have cared less about the world of intelligence and gutted both the military and our intelligence capabilities

          • Another View says:

            Nope. Bill Clinton, who erected the bureaucratic barriers that prevented the detection of the 9-11 attacks, failed on more than one (1) occasion to kill or capture Bin Laden, and treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter.

            That’s who I blame.

      • What a lousy press brief. No empathy whatsoever. Why was Hilary even there? A great orator he is not. Does this guy give a damn about anything other than his own reelection? We need a leader in this country – and this is what we got. I don’t think Romney’s the answer but after the miserable failure of obama we have to give him a chance.

  12. Seriously? I need to write these down, these comments are priceless stereotype. Keep going, please! Recording…

  13. I would like to offer my condolences to the families of those killed in the embassy attacks. It sickens me that religion, any religion, can be used to excuse, or promote, violence.

    This is not a partisan political issue, but a tragedy. Can we not all come together as Americans instead of playing the blame game?

    Americans died. Have some respect for them and their families.

    • Another View says:

      Americans died–predictably–because of Barack Hussein’s weak leadership, poor decisions and appeasement of Muslim countries. I shall show my respect by voting for a new Commander in Chief; one who will protect American interests. One who will attend the daily National Security Briefings.

  14. Yes it is a tragedy and my heart goes out to the families of the deceased.

    Sad that one tweet BEFORE the attack led to a political attack by the republican nominee, who didn’t have the facts. We want that finger on the button? I think not.

    Even the republican leaders in congress had the good grace to distance themselves from Mitt’s meandering stump “speech” and form a united front.

    The bottom line is the republicans are a disgrace to America and the world. Their war mongering and inability to see the forest for the trees (we are the invaders in the middle east and over 500,000 have been killed and maimed since 9/11) leads them to at every opportunity want to bomb, kill and destroy …the very same tactics that got us into these endless and senseless wars on ALL fronts.

    It’s past time to end the USA military madness and withdraw from the middle east and other parts of the world and learn to accept other countries mores, traditions and types of government as nearly every other country in the world does. Bring our troops home and shut down the never ending building of destruction and killing machines and ships and planes. Time for the world and the USA to heal and pursue peace.

    In November throw out of office all the war mongers in congress on both sides of the aisle

    • Another View says:

      The last time I checked, we were attacked first. Then, and only then, did we finally go on the offensive on the home turf of our enemies.

      And the war did not begin on September 11, 2001. It began under the Carter administration, and has steadily escalated since then.

      The United States is neither guilty of “military madness” nor “war mongering”. We use force to protect ourselves and our national interest. We do not conquer, we liberate. The American soldier is a force for good in the world. And for anyone–ANYONE–to suggest otherwise is the height of ignorance.

      And Mitt Romney’s statement was RIGHT ON! The disgraceful statement was the one issued by the Barack Hussein Obama administration through the embassy in Cairo.

      • Fly on the wall says:

        There was nothing disgraceful about that initial statement…made BEFORE the protests escalated. It condemned the movie, and indeed anything that demeaned any religion. It was a step towards trying to de-escalate something, and the right first step. It apologized for nothing, but don’t let that stop your romantic fantasies about GOP warmongers of yore.

        The disgrace, 100%, is owned by Willard Mitt Romney and him alone (and any of the fools on his advising team who told him to say that). His comments were woefully ignorant of the facts, immensely poor in timing, and blatantly nothing more than political grandstanding using some of the cheapest shots imaginable. Members of his own team have roundly (and rightfully) condemned them, and he has proven he is not yet ready for prime time, much less to occupy the Oval Office.

        There was dubious “evidence” that linked Iraq to al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Colin Powell was trotted out in front of the UN like a tool (sad, given his brilliant mind and impeccable career), and we went in and toppled not one but two regimes with no plan for the power vacuum that would ensue.

        • Another View says:

          The initial statement was disgraceful. The follow up statements were not any better.

          The fact is, Barack Hussein Obama apologizes to the Muslim World as a matter of course. Because he is a Muslim, by birth, and by practice. He is tearing down the United States, because, in his view, it is unfair that we should have so much power and influence.

          Mitt Romney’s reaction was refreshing, because it exhibited unapologetic leadership for the United States. That is what Presidents–other than the incumbent–do.

          • “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”

            Barack Obama

            Dreams of my Father

          • How about as it was written instead of promoting fear, let the audience decide on their own?

            “Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, . . . my message is simple, for what I’ve come to understand is that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens deserving of respect.

            “Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” [Page 260-261] . . .

  15. Dan Senor is Romney’s chief foreign policy advisor? Wow, what a blast from the past…..what a shame

  16. I think for Mitt to go out and publicly say that America’s President is weak and a Muslim symphasiser is inviting these people to attack us. Even though I understand why he is doing so. It’s still un-American! How can you support someone like that?

  17. Mr: Some might call it treason, some might call it freedom of speech

    BUT: If Democrat politicians had responded to 9/11 before all the towers were fallen and started criticizing Bush, we might not have had the unity we had on 9/12. And they’d have been called traitors, and should.The way the country stood together then has somehow left us with all the extreme partisan rhetoric on both sides. That is, both extremes.

    The first thing to do when an attack is underway on America is to come together as one under our current President. We have one President at a time (and this one has taken out more terrorists than any of this past predecessors and more effectively too at less cost in money and lives).

    There is absolutely no excuse for what Romney did Pure political pandering, which backfired within the GOP. I think they don’t even like him much, which is kinda cool

    • Another View says:

      Romney’s statement was exactly correct. You don’t apologize for the United States, and that is all Barack Hussein Obama has done as President. The first Muslim President is neither respected nor feared in the Middle East, which is dangerous for this country.

      You cannot compare 9-11-01 w/ 9-11-12. This–what happened yesterday–is Barack Hussein Obama’s fault. It is a failure of leadership that began on January 20, 2009.

      • I can, and will compare terrorist attacks, people were killed, not as many if that’s what you are implying.

        Now that you probably know there was no “apology” from the president, the embassy was responding to the video (long before there was an attack); well anyway, you know this from your briefings I’m sure…now that we know this, we also know that in his job interview for the position of President of the United States, Romney will remember this episode as the point where he blew it. This is the moment in the 2012 campaign where Romney could have acted as a statesman. Romney could have offered his condolences to the families of the victims. He could have given a strong, supportive statement of the U.S. citizens working abroad. He could have condemned the attacks, while at the same time condemning needless acts of religious or racial hatred that serve no one any good. This was a defining moment in the 2012 campaign, and Romney failed to meet the challenge. This is the point where Mitt Romney has completely lost the confidence of the American people. And I might add, people in his party. (John McCain for one)

        • Another View says:

          But the President did apologize. Several times. So did Hillary Hussein Clinton.

          In fact, in foreign policy, this has been just one big apology and appeasement tour for the Left. And the result? The Middle East is in flames, Americans are under siege, and the One’s foreign policy is a failure.

          Mitt Romney was a statesman, a leader and presidential in his comments. He is gaining, not losing, the confidence of the American people.

          And who cares about John McCain? He is a loser. He couldn’t even beat Barack Hussein Obama, for goodness sakes.


          • goodgracious says:

            Wow, Mrs. Clinton is related to President Obama? Does she know this? They don’t even look alike.

            btw, tell us which “foriegn policy” in the Middle East has ever worked? Buying Israel sure hasn’t, they think they own us.

            mittens jumped the gun. glad he didn’t have his finger on the button.

          • Another View says:

            Well let’s see. George W. Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein, and successfully established a friendly government in Iraq. Notice that there has been no attack on that American embassy.

            After George W. Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein, Libya surrendered its weapons of mass destruction program, and reoriented its foreign policy to be pro-American. Pretty good there.

            The Gulf states all welcome American forces as a bulwark against radical Islamic forces and Iran. Under George W. Bush.

            Israel and America enjoyed a very good, beneficial and close relationship. Under George W. Bush.

            And after George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, isn’t it interesting how many Arab states rethought and reversed their tolerance for harboring radical Islamists. Under George W. Bush.

            The best foreign policy for America is peace through strength. Respect and a bit of fear is far better than being loved. And it is better to lead than to follow. Under George W. Bush, America had a very successful Middle East policy.

          • Just wondering... says:

            No, under “W” the Islamists went to Afghanistan and Iraq and regularly blew the bejeezus out of our troops with IEDs and other weapons because our armed forces were on their turf. No need to attack an embassy, when there are thousands of troops to pick from.

            He knocked off Saddam Hussein with no real plan for a transitional government to fall back on, thus the nasty political vacuum that devolved quickly and intensely into a violent near-civil-war shortly thereafter that was only squelched after sending in MORE US and coalition forces to tamp it down. The friendly government in Iraq has really only found its legs under Obama’s term, as our troops have moved out and they have assumed more of their own responsibility.

            The protests in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere are asymmetrical, hard to predict, and – once they ignite – harder to squelch. Contrary to what Sarge espouses, raining cruise missiles on them – at the risk of killing civilians and tossing more kerosene on the blaze at that outrage – is not the answer.

            Obama’s approach, through the use of diplomacy first with selected drone strikes for well-known and located targets, is not a bad one.

          • Another View says:

            The Islamist were defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq. And today, in Iraq, as I wrote, no attack on our embassy.

            Obama abandoned Iraq, demonstrating that he has no diplomatic skills or plans. None.

            Egypt warned us of possible violence on September 4. Barack and Hillary Hussein ignored it.

            But really, did we need to be warned? Did it not occur to anyone in Washington to increase our vigilance on September 11? Is that not an obvious thing to do?

            Barack Hussein Obama stabbed our allies in the back in Libya and Egypt, aiding the rise of Al Qaeda in Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. What did you expect to happen?

            And on September 12 this year? Again, Barack Hussein Obama skipped his Intel briefing. What a schmuck!

            Finally, Obama’s use of drones is cowardly and useless. We need to capture these thugs in order to gain intelligence. Killing them only allows for their replacement.

            But then, if we captured them, we’d have to put them in Guantanamo. Can’t have that, can we? Might upset our electoral base!

            Barack Hussein Obama is weak and the entire world knows it. When the world thinks you are strong, you don’t have to rain cruise missiles, because the bad guys will know you mean business. Right now the world–especially Iran–knows Obama is a joke.

        • I guess it would help to actually READ the statement instead of letting Morning Joe and Chris “Thrill up my leg” Matthews do your thinking for you

          Here is the inital embassy statement, that OBAMA said neither he nor Hillary authorized. So before we move on, you’ll notice that the embassy is freelancing. Unfortunately, words and statements that come out of US Embassies are considered official US policy. It’s been that way forever.

          “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

          You’ll notice that they do indeed “Condemn”/APOLOGIZE for a film maker, instead of going after the barbarians that were getitng ready to murder our ambassador. Maybe they could have actually condemned the rioters. But I guess that would make too much sense.

          So you see, Romney was correct. The embassy addressed the situation from a position of weakness, which arabs despise and interpret as a sign of weakness. the embassy should have known this.

          They further go on to “reject” the “abuse” of free speech. Hmmm. I thought we had that right here. God knows there have been enough “artists” here that have smeared portriats of Jesus with **** and called it “art” and “freedom of speech”. But since Obama and his twits operate under the premise of “We must not offeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend the muslims”, I guess that;s not the case when directed at muslims

          Romney later issued this statement

          ROMNEY: Good morning. Americans woke up this morning with — with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world.

          This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it’s disgusting, it — it breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives the cause of freedom and justice and honor.

          We — we mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.

          Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And of course with these words I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones who have left behind, as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation.

          And I know that the people across America are grateful for their service. And we mourn their sacrifice

          Hmm. Seems to me to be offering condolences and all that good stuff

          Frankly, he sounded a lot more presidential than Obama, who can’t even seem to figure out if Egypt is still an ally or not.

          And oh boy, Hillary issued a “strongly worded statement” tonight to the countries that are allowing the islamists to run amok

          They must be crapping their pants right about now after that.

          • Fly on the wall says:

            Condemning the film is NOT the same thing as apologizing. You are making a lame attempt to make a story out of a lie.

            Point of fact: Romney stepped in it big time and looked highly opportunistic. He and his surrogates have tried to spin and flipflop and re-write it so that he doesn’t wear the egg he does, but ti won’t work.


            This is his first statement, Sarge:
            ” “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

            — Romney statement, issued 10:24 p.m., Sept. 11, 2012

            In the rush of the events, the embassy’s initial statement was solid, if inartfully written. However, Romney’s 1st statement attacked it as an “apology” and suggested we sympathized with the attackers…which was and is a lie.

          • Another View says:

            By condemning the film, he placed blame for the violence on the filmmaker. He excused the violence. THAT IS AN APOLOGY.

            And he continues. He blames the violence on an obscure YOU TUBE video, instead of his own inept actions.

            And Mitt did nothing wrong. Indeed, Barack Hussein Obama adopted Mitt’s position soon after, only to reverse himself again.

            The fact is that you and the Left don’t want to debate foreign policy, because to do so would expose Barack Hussein Obama as a failure. He has failed America in his principal constitutional role. He is a disgrace. And since he won’t resign, he must be defeated.

          • Just wondering... says:

            It, the movie, was condemned along with any and all efforts to abuse free speech to demean any religion. The attackers didn’t care, of course, and NOBODY has excused their actions – which, btw, were ALSO condemned immediately by Obama, Sec. Clinton, and later the governments in those countries, and elsewhere, and some Islamic holy leaders in those areas, too.

            Obama et al. responded appropriately, albeit not as smoothly as some clearly desired.

          • Another View says:

            In the United States of America, we do not condemn free speech. In the United States of America, we do not excuse violence against us due to offense taken at free speech. In the United States of America, we do not suggest that free speech might be–even might be–inappropriate.

            Barack Hussein Obama bungled it. Again.

          • Just wondering... says:

            AV, free speech in this country is condemned all the time. If someone calls someone a [redacted] or other some such ignorant racist name gets blasted. You can’t call out “Fire!” in crowded places without an expectation of being held somewhat responsible for the panic and harm that might ensue. The Secret Service will pay you a visit of you voice a threat against the president or any other government official that is promulgated in the media.

            Condemning something is NOT the same thing as apologizing for it, NOR is it an excuse for any violence that might erupt from it. Well, to rational folks not trying to score cheap political points off the dead it’s not. To you, and those of your stripe, it is.

          • Another View says:

            It was an apology.

            There is a difference between YOU condemning the movie, and the President of the United States doing it. Barack Hussein Obama was IRRESPONSIBLE in his actions. He has been bumbling and bungling since January 20, 2009. His displacement cannot come soon enough.

          • “Condemning the film is NOT the same thing as apologizing. You are making a lame attempt to make a story out of a lie.”

            Maybe not here, but over there, I guarantee it just further pissed off the barbarians

            BTW, has Barack Obama decided if Egypt is an ally today or an enemy?

            Just wondering

          • Kevin Lambert says:

            Such a shame that this website has gone to complete crap over about 2 people’s political beliefs. So much for news in Clarke County!

  18. If the ratings on AV and sarge’s comments are a forecast of the election, Romney doesn’t have much of a chance.

  19. Another View says:

    The Muslim attacks and protests are spreading around the world. The American flag is being burnt from Australia to London. How can this be possible under the leadership of Barack “The Great”? The man who would cause the planet to heal? The man who promised to right all past “wrongs” inflicted by the US on the world? The man who reached out to the Islamic world while distancing himself from our long and traditional allies, such as Israel? The man who refuses to bring Iran to heal while it develops nuclear weapons to attack Israel and the United States?

    Barack Hussein Obama has created this mess. Someone else will have to clean it up. So he MUST GO!

  20. ElinorDashwood says:

    “Once upon a time, there was a silver-tongued president. His foreign policy must have been seen by enemies of the United States as weak and feckless, because these enemies became emboldened. Mideast terrorists staged a brutal, bloody attack in which innocent Americans were killed. The president’s response could be seen as a display of shameful weakness rather than steely resolve.
    I’m referring, of course, to Ronald Reagan and the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which claimed 241 American lives — and led Reagan to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon.”

    I’m happy that our president has a cool head and doesn’t shoot first and aim later but honestly, it wouldn’t have mattered if he had nuked the country into oblivion as a reaction to recent events. The right-wing would have still found fault with his decisions because their hate for the man himself appears to be on a cellular level.

    • Another View says:

      Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, defeating the Soviet Union without firing a shot. That is real strength and real accomplishment.

      This President has no foreign policy accomplishments, only failures. Those failures are reflected in the flames engulfing American flags around the globe today.

      • Just wondering... says:

        He ended the Cold War because he led the push to outspend the USSR on weaponry and more of it. The economies of the former Soviet Bloc couldn’t keep pace with the debt needed to match the US and NATO arsenals tit for tat.

        Doing so was what, on Reagan’s watch, caused the US to make the dubious switch from the world’s #1 lender nation to the world’s #1 borrower nation. We’re STILL paying off that debt, on top of everything else.

        • Another View says:

          Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

          Ronald Reagan led on all fronts. He confronted the Soviet Union, abandoning the containment doctrine; the first U.S. President to do so. He abandoned Mutually Assured Destruction, working to build anti-missile defense; the first U.S. President to do so. And he actively worked to free people enslaved by Soviet clients; the first U.S. President to do so.

          Ronald Reagan was a great President. Barack Hussein Obama is a poseur.

  21. Obama’s restraint, outreach, and empathy for all the victims of these angry mobs has allowed fragile governments to look good, arrests have been made, apologies have come in from these countries, sympathy for our fallen heroes has come in from all over the world.

    We are once again on the moral high ground, and all freedom-loving, peace-loving people are with us.

    Thank you, Mr. President, for restoring our America to its deserved high place in the family of Nations.

    Romney and his bullies are fighting to find a way to pull their stupid feet out of their mouths.

    When John McCain has to defend the President on Sean Hannity, you KNOW Romney’s backers are becoming a dangerous, desperate rabble.

    • Another View says:

      Obama’s “restraint, outreach, and empathy”? Obama created the conditions that CAUSED this outrage!

      WHO “are with us”? Obama promised at the beginning of his term that he would create peace and harmony, establishing good relations with Muslims. That HAS NOT happened!

      What is our place in the “family of nations”? Are we just another country? Or the leaders of the free world? The fact is, under Barack Hussein Obama, we are the world’s doormat.

      WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • I see this morning that the State Department has started evacuating Americans from several countries with “peace loving people”, due to threats against them.

      If anything, I’d say, in the immortal words of OBAMA’S moral compass, Rev Wright, that OBAMA’s chickens have come home to roost.

      Honestly, if you are no more informed that what you posted above, please don’t vote. If you do, I’ll have to vote twice in order to counter the naivety

  22. Everyone should certainly vote.

    To the evangelical right, the selection of Paul Ryan as VP is what qualifies Mitt Romney as the candidate to vote for. Hate of Obama is the other qualifier. The question is then, what does Mitt Romney bring to the table to qualify him as President? The most powerful position in the world can not be left in the hands of Romney, who lacks integrity, values, judgment, empathy, and character. What Romney has shown so far is that he is not qualified. The next 8 weeks will only reinforce what many on the GOP are already saying: Mitt is not ready for prime time.