Domingo, 28 de octubre de 2012
Craig Andresen

Weekend Edition: IT WAS TREASON – Arrest Obama

By Craig Andresen on October 27, 2012 at 5:13 am

Last Thursday, I wrote an article titled, “Obama & Libya – A Case Study in Treason” and in that article I stated, “When a president fails to lift a finger to protect Americans, at home or abroad, in the face of overwhelming intelligence and evidence, by ignoring obvious warning signs and the advice of those entrusted to offer such protection…”

“It is treason.”

I meant every word and yes, I am well aware of the weight of the word, “treason.”

I do not nor have I ever used it lightly. I see that word bandied about on social media and while I understand full well the passion of those who use it, I rarely, if ever, believe that the issues to which it is applied, truly rise to that level.

This situation, in Libya, I am convinced…Does.

To explain, let’s first look at the legal definition and it’s context within our Constitution.

Definition of Treason in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Legal Definition of Treason:

The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution:

Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

Day by day…Nearly hour by hour, we learn more about what transpired in Benghazi on 9-11-12.

Yesterday, we learned a truly horrific truth.

As the first shots rang out at our Consulate, the calls for help, coming from the “safe” annex were sent to Washington.

Not once.

Not twice.

Three times, Tyrone Woods and a CIA operative, at the annex, called for help and asked permission to go TO the Consulate to offer assistance…To fight.

Washington denied them.

Not once.

Not twice.

Three times, Washington denied them help or permission to join the fight.

After the third denial, Ex Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods, went against the direct order to stand down and, he stood up.

Tyrone Woods went to the Consulate defying a direct order and he got as many of our personnel out of there as he could…Including the body of State Department officer Sean Smith.

Tyrone Woods could not find Ambassador Stevens.

Tyrone Woods took those he rescued and the body of Mr. Smith back to the annex where he was joined shortly after by Glen Doherty, another Ex Navy Seal who had just arrived from Tripoli.

A few hours later, that annex came under fire from terrorists now believed to be Ansar al-Sharia, a well known affiliate of al Qaeda.

We also learned yesterday that Woods and Doherty were on the roof of the annex and from their vantage point, could see the position of the mortars being fired at them. They “painted” that position with a laser used to guide weapons from military aircraft.

Military aircraft that were not coming to help.

Those aircraft, from Italy, which could have included Blackhawk helicopters and a C-130 gunship, had also been ordered, from Washington, to stand down.

For those unfamiliar with a C-130 gunship, it is one of the most feared weapons in our military. The C-130 is specifically designed for close air support roles include supporting ground troops, escorting convoys, and flying urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against planned targets and targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include defending bases and other facilities.

As far as the enemy is concerned…When a C-130 gunship comes into the picture…Hell comes with it.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke on Thursday and, as a reason for NOT sending help, stated: “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The problem is this.

We DID have real-time information. Those in the State Department were literally watching the terrorist attack happen live via video link AND we had what we now know were 2 unmanned drones over the attack site in Benghazi. If that’s not enough, at the annex, less than a mile away, we had a Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods AND a CIA operative.

By the time the second wave of the attack began, at the annex, we had the CIA operative and 2 Navy Seals, Woods and Doherty and THEY were “painting” the position of the mortar launches with a laser used to guide the very weapons that a Blackhawk or C-130 could have brought to bear.

If that’s not enough, our military is the most highly trained military on earth. Those who fly those ships of war train each and every day for exactly the sort of eventually that was transpiring that night in Benghazi. Their very job is to go into harm’s way.

Combined…all of this lays waste to Panetta’s explanation and reduces it to nothing but a bald faced, unadulterated lie.

Back to treason.

For an act of treason to occur, a state of war must exist.

We are indeed at war. In Afghanistan, we are currently engaged in war against al Qaeda.  Ansar al-Sharia IS a well-known al Qaeda affiliate and Ansar al-Sharia was attacking our consulate and annex, both considered American soil.

For an act of treason to be committed, one must manifest a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

There are some 20,000 shoulder fired rockets, RPG’s and other heavy weapons MISSING that were provided to Libyan rebels in the attempt to oust Gaddafi from power. We didn’t know WHO those rebels were at the time we armed them and, in fact, within hours of Gaddafi’s death, the flags of al Qaeda were flying in Benghazi.

Furthermore, in cables from security personnel in the months leading up TO the fatal attack, it was clearly stated that those al Qaeda flags were still flying over several government buildings in Benghazi.

Also, regarding an act of treason, If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The order for Navy Seal Tyrone Wood to stand down, the orders to our military in Italy to stand down and the repeated…not once…Not twice but…Three denials of help from Washington does, by any definition, equate to a “weakening of the power to resist its enemies.”

During the 2nd debate, when a question regarding Libya was posed, Obama responded:

“Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job  but, she works for Me. I’m the president. I’m always responsible.”

The State Department was watching the attack live, in real-time.

Emails were sent to some 400 people in Washington DURING the attack, in real-time.

Among the recipients of those emails was the White House Situation room.

At the time those emails arrived at the White House Situation Room, Obama was meeting with his Security Team.

Obama says that HE is the president and HE is responsible.

I am sensing a very, very…VERY short chain of command here.

The calls for help from the CIA operative and Tyrone Woods were NOT ignored and did NOT go unanswered. The requests to enter the fight from bases in Italy were NOT ignored and did NOT go unanswered.

All were DENIED.

That shows a purposeful action.

All of those calls for help and requests for deployment were DENIED purposefully.

The result was that our enemy, those conducting the operation against our Consulate, our annex, our assets and our personnel in Benghazi, was aided…AIDED…by a purposeful lack of response…DIRECTED FROM THE HIGHEST LEVELS IN WASHINGTON.

Our Consulate in Benghazi was destroyed while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

4 Americans were killed while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

Whatever confidential papers or records contained in that Consulate were either destroyed or went missing while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

“…such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or CLASSIFIED INFORMATION…”


Who gave the willful and purposeful order to deny help when Navy Seal Tyrone Woods called?


Who gave the willful and purposeful order for Tyrone Woods and the CIA Operative to Stand Down?


Who gave the willful and purposeful order for our highly trained, apt and heavily armed military in Italy to stand down?


“Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job but, she works for ME. I’m the president. I’m always responsible.”

For the very life of me, I cannot conjure a single conclusion other than treason, brought about by political cowardice, for denying help not once, not twice but, three times in the midst of a terrorist attack and not one reason but treason, brought about by political cowardice, for the willful and purposeful order to those in a position to offer needed help in the midst of a terrorist attack, to stand down.

2 quotes come to mind. The first, from Marcus Tullius Cicero, describes the sort of man who would issue orders not to send help and for Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to stand down in the face of the attack.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

And the second, from John15:13, is the precise description of the last hours and minutes of the lives of Woods and Doherty.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Ultimately, only one person could have issued the orders not to help and for the military not to deploy.

Only one. Barack Obama.

Will ANY Member of Congress show the moral clarity and courage of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty? Will ANY Member of Congress stand AGAINST political cowardice and call this what it was?

An Act of Treason.

Craig Andresen

The National Patriot

Weekend Edition 10/27/12

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:13
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 24 de octubre de 2012

Trump to give $5 million to charity if Obama releases records

NEW YORK | Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:40pm EDT

Oct 24 (Reuters) - Donald Trump offered to pay $5 million to the charity of President Barack Obama's choice if Obama releases his college and passport records, the real estate mogul and television personality said on Wednesday.

"Frankly, it's a check that I very much want to write," Trump said in a YouTube video released via his Twitter and Facebook pages.

Trump has questioned whether Obama's birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii is legitimate, suggesting Obama was not born in the United States, which could have made him ineligible for the White House. The White House released the long-form copy of Obama's birth certificate in 2011.

Trump did not say what he expected the college and passports records to reveal but was specific in saying he wanted to see all of Obama's college applications and records and his passport applications and records.

"President Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country," Trump said in the video.

"If he releases these records it will end the question and indeed the anger of many Americans."

Trump, who had toyed with the idea of running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, said the deadline for the release of the documents was 5 p.m. (2100 GMT) on Oct. 31.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 22 de octubre de 2012


What Caused the Loan Crisis

The following condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis" has been circulated via e-mail. (Hat tip to Frank for sending this to me.)

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.
1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.
1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.
1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 - 1999: Clinton , bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.
2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!
Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.
Good article related dated 09/02/2012

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 17 de octubre de 2012

Romney Defeats Both Obama And Crowley At Debate

Mitt Romney speech SC Romney defeats both Obama and Crowley at Debate

No one told Mitt Romney that he would be the lone Republican taking part in a three-way debate on Tuesday night; but, not altogether unpredictably, that’s the way it turned out.

According to debate moderator and part-time participant Candy Crowley, it was “instinct” that forced her to intercede on Obama’s behalf during the somewhat rancorous discussion of the Benghazi murder of Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. When Romney stated quite correctly that it took the Obama Administration 14 days to call the Benghazi killings a terror attack, Obama protested, and Crowley immediately came to his rescue, saying to Romney “he did, in fact, Sir (call it an act of terror,)”  referring to a statement given by the president the day after the killings.

What Obama really said was “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” Although this was indeed part of a statement given the day after the Benghazi attacks, Obama had NOT referenced the Benghazi killings as the “acts of terror” he spoke of. Rather, it was a general statement that could have just as easily referred to the 9/11 attacks the president had brought up at the same time. And it is a fact that no one in the Obama Administration–including Obama himself—spoke of terror in relation to Benghazi for the next 2 weeks, opting instead to call the 4 deaths the result of an “anti-Muhammed movie” discovered on the internet. Certainly, that would have been an odd tack for the Administration to take had the president actually referred to the Benghazi murders as “acts of terror” on the day after they had occurred.

Yet Crowley felt it her duty, or rather a matter of “instinct”, to come to Obama’s defense at this key moment in the debate.

Funny the instinctive moderator didn’t believe it necessary to correct Obama when he claimed that “…oil production has been up and that the oil companies have been granted permits to drill but refuse to do so.” “We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years,” said the president, apparently oblivious to the fact that oil companies have vacated the Gulf of Mexico, costing Americans thousands of jobs.

But Romney quickly corrected Obama, telling the audience that “oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.” Yet, for some reason, Ms. Crowley did NOT admonish the president for his less-than-factual claims! Apparently, she did not have these facts at her fingertips as she obviously did Obama’s Benghazi statement.

Mitt Romney won this debate, defeating Barack Obama and his obliging assistant with both facts and superior delivery. Of course, most of the media immediately declared Obama the victor, but that was to be expected.

So polls are not likely to change a great deal as a result of the town hall, unless a few undecided voters who paid close attention now decide to support Romney, thanks to the smarmy antics of Candy Crowley.


Candy Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times and Obama only 9 times.

 Crowley was a biased partisan and should NOT have been a moderator!!
Photo: Candy Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times and Obama only 9 times.

LIKE if you agree that Crowley was a biased partisan and should NOT have been a moderator!!

17 Oct 2012, 6:06 AM PDT 439 post a comment

Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect:

1. She wouldn’t let him respond when Obama lied about the auto industry. First she called him Mr. Romney instead of governor, then protested, “there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to... We have all these folks.  I will let you absolutely... OK. Will - will - you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.” Romney never did get the chance to respond.

2. After the question asking whether gas prices as they stand now are the new normal, Obama got 2 chances to respond. When Romney asked for his second chance, Crowley shut him off by saying, “ … in the follow up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to.” She didn’t.

3. When discussing how he would deal with deductions, just as Romney was about to destroy Obama with statistics, Crowley jumped in to save her man not only by denying the value of statistics, but changing the narrative to say Romney’s numbers couldn’t possibly add up:

“And Governor, let's - before we get into a vast array of who says - what study says what, if it shouldn't add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again …”

4. When Romney was trying to make a point of Obama’s pension investing in China, Crowley cut him off by insinuating people were tired of him talking:

“Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you.  Make it short.”

Then she really tried to humiliate him with this: “If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.” She never asked Obama to sit down.

5. The infamous incident when she interrupted Romney’s claim about Obama’s refusal to call the Benghazi murders a terror attack:

“It - it - it - he did in fact, sir. So let me - let me call it an act of terror...

Prompted by Obama to say it a little louder, Crowley obliged:

“He - he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

6.  6. Just as egregiously, when the question was about assault weapons and Romney naturally started to discuss fast and furious, Crowley quickly shifted him away from that and turned it into an attack on Romney’s assault ban position:

“Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?’

The fact that Obama escaped all night long by lie after lie didn’t seem to disturb Crowley in the slightest. She had her shadowy agenda, and she stuck to it fiercely. Now it is our job to throw her out into the sun where every American can see exactly how dirty she is.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 04 de octubre de 2012\



Obama the LEFTIST got

beaten by Romney the Job


Romney charges Obama’s jobs plan failure

GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney tonight charged that President Barack Obama’s jobs plan is a failure, with millions out of work and looking for help.

“My plan is to put people back to work in America,” Romney said tonight at the first of three presidential debates scheduled for the 2012 presidential election season.

“Look at the history of the past four years. We have 23 million people unemployed. Keeping with the status quo is not going to work for the American people.”

Obama returned to his oft-repeated theme of blaming George W. Bush, asserting the taxation approach Romney was proposing was nothing more than a return to the “trickle-down” economy of the Republican plan.

Obama began the debate by reciting familiar campaign themes, suggesting once again that his administration inherited from Bush one of the worst economies in the history of the United States.

But Romney struck a theme of energy independence and advancing small business as keys to getting the U.S. economy growing again. He accused Obama of proposing “trickle-down government,” represented by more government regulation and more taxation.

Romney disputed Obama’s assertion he was locked into a tax cut, charging that under the Obama administration the middle class has been pressed by reduced income, diminished job opportunities and increased food and energy costs.

From the first moments of the debate, Romney looked Obama directly in the eye, took exception to president’s assertions about Romney’s policies, and gave more precise answers.

Obama pressed that Romney’s economic plan called for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in military budget increases, a program Obama asserted would demand tax increases on middle-income earners.

“Look, I’ve got five boys and I’m used to somebody saying something that’s not true and hoping that by repeating it I’m going to believe it,” Romney countered, asserting that everything Obama said about his tax program was inaccurate.

Obama insisted Romney’s tax-reduction plan of necessity would either increase the deficit or demand tax increases for the middle class, charging that under Romney’s definition Donald Trump would be a small business.

Objecting to Jim Lehrer’s interruption that the first segment was exceeding the 15-minute limit, Romney charged that Obama would increase taxes on small businesses at the cost of 700,000 jobs.

As the discussion advanced to the nation’s deficit, Obama reiterated his statement that he inherited a massive deficit, and appeared on the defensive.

“You have been president for four years, you said you would cut the deficit in half and you have run $1 trillion in deficits each of the four years,” Romney attacked. “That does not get the job done.”

Romney pointed out that when the economy was growing as slowly as it is now, more slowly than when Obama took office, this is no time to increase taxes.

“You never balance the budget by increasing taxes,” Romney insisted. “I don’t want to go down the path of Spain.”

“Does Exxon Mobil need more money when they are making money every time you go to the pump?” Obama argued. “We have to eliminate tax deductions for moving jobs overseas. A balanced approach to increasing taxes will help people go to college.”

Forty minutes into the debate, Romney challenged that Obama appeared to begin skipping around topics, ranging from Medicaid, to college education, to the taxation of oil companies.

“You put $90 billion of tax breaks into losers like Solyndra, this is not the type of tax policy you implement to make the United States energy secure,” Romney countered.

“I would like to tell the states they will get the Medicare dollars they got last year to manage the state poor as the states see fit,” Romney argued, asserting the states are the laboratory of government.

Lehrer asked Obama if his position on Social Security was different from Romney’s.

Obama asserted his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was independent in retirement only because of Social Security.

“There are millions of people out there depending upon Social Security,” Obama noted. “We can save millions by not overpaying insurance companies and health care providers. The way to deal with Medicare is to lower medical costs. With Social Security you do not need a major structural change.”

In response, Romney reassured the audience neither he nor Obama was proposing any changes for those 60 years or older, except he asserted Obama was cutting $716 billion from health care providers in Medicare to pay for Obamacare – at the cost of reducing the rates paid to providers, even though both hospitals and doctors say that under these cuts they will quit taking Medicare patients.

Obama countered by saying that for Romney’s plan to work those under 60 would be required to go to a voucher system.

“I don’t think vouchers are the way to go,” Obama argued, asserting that AARP agreed with him. “If you repeal Obamacare seniors today will have to pay more and the only beneficiary will be insurance companies when they are not making seniors any more healthy.”

Romney said he does not support taking $716 billion from Medicare and he argued that in the future those currently under 60 could either choose to go to a voucher system or stay with Medicare as it currently is.

Returning to the question of the deficit, Obama challenged broadly that greed and reckless profit-taking on Wall Street caused the economic downturn the nation continues to experience.

“Does anyone out there think we should repeal Dodd-Frank because there was too much regulation on Wall Street?” Obama asked.

“We have to have regulations,” Romney countered, “but Dodd-Frank provides for banks that are too big to fail. Two years into Dodd-Frank, we still don’t know what a qualified mortgage is.”

Up next was health care, and Romney began the segment by making it clear he would repeal Obamacare and implement health care reform on the state level, citing the example of how he instituted health care when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Obama said under Obamacare, each American could keep his or her own doctor and insurance plan, despite increasing evidence to the contrary already available in the health care market after Obamacare was implemented.

Concluding his opening to the segment, Obama tried to tag Romney with having instituted the predecessor to Obamacare in Massachusetts.

“I like what we did in Massachusetts, we had a bipartisan coalition, while you and Nancy Pelosi pushed through Congress what you thought was the best answer, even after Massachusetts elected a Republican senator to block you,” Romney charged, indicating CBO statistics that 20 million Americans will lose their current insurance coverage next year. “The American people do not want Obamacare. Something this big has to be done on a bipartisan basis, with a president capable of reaching across the aisle to get it done.”

Obama retorted that Obamacare was no different than the plan Romney instituted in Massachusetts.

“There are two ways to handle health care in the United States,” Obama asserted, in an answer that talked about a board constituted only to determine best practices, not to apportion or ration health care to Americans needing medical treatment. “We can leave people to fend for themselves or we can reduce the cost of health care in America.”

“The government is not able to bring down costs in anything,” Romney said, arguing that Obama’s example of the Cleveland Clinic proved his point that health costs are contained not by a board of 15 people dictating the type of health care people need, but by the free enterprise system.

“The federal government mandating to people and doctors what type of health care they can get is not the way to go,” Romney concluded.

Obama conceded that Romney’s plan in Massachusetts differed from Obamacare in that Romney’s plan involved a large increase in the private health insurance system.

Obama said Romney was not specific on exactly how he was going to replace Obamacare, just as Romney was not specific on how he would replace Dodd-Frank.

“My experience as a governor is that if I lay down a plan that says ‘My way or the highway,’ we don’t get a lot done,” Romney concluded. “I want to work together the way Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill. There are alternatives but my plan has objectives to reduce regulations and stimulate growth, state by state.”

Romney said “ignoring the 10th Amendment is not the way to have a vibrant economy.”

Romney said the key to education is great teachers, and he raised a reference to the U.S. Constitution regarding citizen rights.

“I interpret our founding documents as providing a responsibility for religious freedom – to pursue happiness by taking care of the less fortunate – but massive government involvement limits freedom – the path we are taking is not working with 23 million Americans unemployed and 50 million on food stamps.”

Obama said the responsibility of the federal government was important in improving the educational system in America.

“Budgets reflect choices. If we cut taxes to benefit people like Gov. Romney and me, it makes a difference,” Obama. He again demanded specifics of the GOP plans.

“When it comes to making college affordable, whether it be two years or four years, we cut out the middleman and eliminated banks from making a profit in student loans. Gov. Romney believes in education but he tells kids to borrow from their parents to go to college.”

Romney responded, “Mr. President, you are entitled to your own airplane and your own house – but not to your own facts.”

Romney said Obama put $90 billion into green jobs, but half of the recipients went bankrupt and others were owned by contributors to your campaign, and questioned the number of teachers that would have hired.

Romney proposed grading schools to know which were succeeding and which were failing.

“Massachusetts schools are ranked No. 1 in education because I care for education for all our children,” Romney said.

Lehrer lost an entire segment because he did not control the debate.

He asked what the candidates would do about political gridlock

Romney said as president he would sit down the day after he got elected with congressional leaders both Republican and Democrat to find common ground.

“This deficit could crush the future generations. Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need leadership in Washington that will bring people together.”

Obama quipped that Romney will have a busy first day because he was also going to repeal Obamacare – an idea Obama said would not be popular with Democrats when Romney is sitting down with them.

Obama said his administration saw progress even with a Republican House.

“Have we had some fights? Yes, because the fights needed to be had – leadership is being able to say no to your own party,” he said. Obama charged Romney had not been able to say no to the “extreme elements” of his own party

In his closing statement, Obama promised to continue to work during the next four years as he has during the first term.

Romney warned four more years for an Obama administration would put the middle class under an even heavier burden than exists now.

Tonight’s debate originally was to be divided into six time segments of about 15 minutes each and focus on domestic policy. The national television audience was estimated to be 50 million.

Going into the event, polls showed the two candidates in a virtual tie, each collecting 47 percent of likely voters, although a report in Politico said Romney led in toss-up states and “it is Obama who is losing ground.”

The events are set up by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a bipartisan group assembled specifically to organize the campaign debates every four years.

The commission was formed in 1987 and organized presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

Obama has had mediocre job-approval numbers and the economy is working against him, with unemployment remaining high despite his spending billions of taxpayer dollars on “stimulus.”

Romney’s economic message, however, hasn’t generated wide enthusiasm as of yet.

Republican strategist Mark McKinnon told the Denver Post the debate is Romney’s “last best chance” to take control of the race.

“He needs to have a moment that gets people to view him differently,” he told the newspaper. “And he needs to articulate some ideas that people think are credible on the economy.”

Dan Schnur, director of a political center at the University of Southern California, told the Post that Obama’s task is to protect his marginal advantage. David Birdsell of Baruch College in New York said short answers tend to make Obama “appear supercilious,” the Post reported.

He said, “The president needs to avoid looking smug, out of touch and arrogant.”

At five weeks ahead of the election, early voting already is beginning in some states.

The vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan will be at Centre College in Danville, Ky., on Oct. 11. Martha Raddatz of ABC News is scheduled to be the moderator. The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine segments of about 10 minutes each.

Two more president debates between Romney and Obama will take place Oct. 16 and Oct. 22. The first event is at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and Candy Crowley of CNN will moderate. It will take the form of a town meeting, where citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. The last event will be at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.. Bob Schieffer of CBS’ “Face the Nation” will moderate and the format will be the same as the first

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar