He knew. He lied. Here’s the proof.

 

Here’s the proof.  Obama lied about knowing the cause of the attack.  He deliberately kept the narrative about the video going to cover it up.  He did so because he wanted to be reelected.  His foreign policy is a disaster except for the killing of Osama Bin Laden and Libya.  He did not want to let us know that Libya was unstable, even after it cost American lives. -Mario Murillo.

 

 

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

 

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Obama falls into the trap that he laid for Romney.

 

Obama set the trap and fell into it himself.  Obama went small and Romney went big.

It was a clear an answer to prayer.  In the debate, Romney avoided every trap that was laid for him to look like a bellicose warmonger.  Instead, as Charles Krauthammer said, “If you had been on a desert island the last four years and didn’t know who these two men were, you would have thought that Romney was the president and that Obama was the challenger.

Here is more from a Charles Krauthammer interview with Megan Kelly right after the debate:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think it’s unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn’t just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he’s had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he’s a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he’s talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate.

We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger. Now I would have gone after Obama on Libya like a baseball bat, but that’s why Romney has won elections and I’ve never had to even contested them. He decided to stay away from the and I think that might have actually worked for him.

What he did concentrate on is the big picture. People don’t care what our policy on Syria is going to be. They care about how America is perceived in the world and how America carries itself in the world. And the high point is when he devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour. Obama’s answer was ask any reporter and they will tell you it wasn’t so. That’s about as weak an answer you can get. And Romney’s response to quote Obama saying that, ‘we dictate to other nations,’ and Romney said, ‘we do not dictate to other nations, we liberate them.’ And Obama was utterly speechless.

So that is the large picture, America is strong and respecting. What Obama did is he kept interrupting, interjecting and his responses were almost all very small, petty attacks. The lowest was when he’s talking about sanctions that are old. ‘When I was working on sanctions you were investing in a company in China.’ I mean that is the kind of attack you expect from a guy who is running for city council for the first time, that’s not what you expect from the president. A personal attack about an investment when talking about Iran?

I thought Romney had the day. He looked presidential. The president did not. And that’s the impression I think that is going to be left.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX News: Mitt Romney sounded a bit more dovish, less bellicose than some, perhaps on the right wanted to hear. How will that play?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think those on the right like me, who would have loved for him to have been bellicose and love the near fisticuffs will understand exactly why Romney did it. He stayed away from the pitfalls. He did not allow himself to be painted as a war monger. This is what Reagan understood in 1980, he did it extremely well. So Romney did and I think this could help him win the election.

In tonight’s debate, Romney is once again walking into a trap. It will hinge on one word.

It surprised me to learn that many experts that I trust believe that the winner of tonight’s debate will win the election.   It has been a long time since debates have had that kind of clout.   They tell me that it is because of the trouncing that Romney gave Obama in Denver that tonight has become so critical to the election.

Once again I tossed and turned last night and in my time of prayer I became painfully aware that another trap is being set.  Since this is Obama’s last chance, HE WILL APPROACH IT LIKE A WOUNDED ANIMAL.

Tonight watch closely.  It will happen fast but it will be obvious. Once again there will be a trick.  Unless we pray fervently, you will see the debate become a staged gotcha moment for Mitt Romney.  I can even tell you that I believe there will be a single word that will be the weapon.    The word will be, “WAR.”   

Both the moderator and the President will frame Romney as a President that will take us to war.  Obama thinks that he can win by appealing to a nation that is sick of war. He thinks that all he has to do is get the word in as many questions as possible.   Obama will return to the “W” word again and again.  Just watch and see.

If Romney takes the bait by saying that he would arm Syrian freedom fighters and cannot then defend his position effectively it will spring the trap.  He must demonstrate that he understands the world is a complex, unpredictable, subtle and rapidly changing place. He must show that he can lead with strength and restraint.

For Obama’s part, look to see him suddenly appear as a voice of reason to a war weary nation.   His theme will be that we “simply cannot allow a new voice to come into the White House in this explosive atmosphere in the Middle East.”

To the untrained eye tonight may look like a fair and balanced debate.   Only a naïve child would think that the Obama machine that stretches from Hollywood to the Muslim brotherhood will go down easily.   They will employ every last shred of influence that they have from the media and everywhere else to save this presidency.

However, prayer worked in the first debate and prayer will make the difference tonight.  Join me and let me know you are joining me for God’s will to be done tonight! 

This is what a losing incumbent looks like

 

When desperation strikes incumbents

POSTED AT 8:31 AM ON OCTOBER 20, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

It’s been a while since we’ve had an incumbent President lose an election.  In fact, it was 20 years ago, when George H. W. Bush lost in a three-way fight to Bill Clinton.  What made that election remarkable was that Bush had enjoyed some of the best-ever job approval ratings of any modern American President just a little over a year earlier, into the 80s — unthinkable these days for anyone, Republican or Democrat.  Bush, a decorated veteran of World War II and a longtime player in diplomacy and national security, lost the election to an upstart Governor when the economy turned somewhat sour.

I recall the moment when I realized for the first time — not feared, but realized — that Bush would lose the election.  Bush was campaigning in Michigan at the end of October, trying to whip some energy back into his campaign in the home stretch, a task that would fall far short just a few days later.  Then-Governor John Engler told the Warren, MI crowd that the Bush campaign was “hot” and the Democrats “dead in the water,” which was merely the kind of fantasy all campaigns spin toward the end.

Bush then spoke, and went after Clinton and Al Gore in a personal, demeaning way I’d not heard from the President before then:

At a midday GOP rally at Macomb Community College, the president unleashed a rhetorical fusillade on Bill Clinton and running mate Sen. Albert Gore Jr., attacking their fitness for office, their character and charging, “My dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than these two bozos.”

In particular, Bush targeted Gore, whom he now calls “Ozone Man,” or just plain “Ozone.” “You know why I call him Ozone Man?” Bush said. “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme, we’ll be up to our neck in owls and outta work for every American. He is way out, far out, man.”

When I heard that, I thought to myself, “What President talks like that?”  Part of the advantage the office gives an incumbent is its gravitas.  Bush’s own history as a diplomat, intelligence executive, and war hero gave him plenty more of that.  Bush abandoned that in the final week in schoolyard name-calling. That’s not why Bush lost the election, of course.  It was, however, the moment that I knew he’d lost it — and was pretty sure he knew he was losing, too.

Keep that in mind when you hear Barack Obama on the stump talking about “Romnesia.”  Those elementary-school attacks using people’s names are something one usually farms out to surrogates (and is pretty lame regardless).  That comes with the grasping of “binders,” literally grasping in Joe Biden’s case (and literally literally, not Bidenesque “literally”), as a major campaign theme. When the President himself starts using attacks like this, it speaks to his desperation more than his opponent’s positions.  It adds more heft to the argument that the first debate wasn’t a fluke, but demonstrated an actual gap in presidential stature between the two men.

Why Obama has still not labeled the attack on Benghazi a terrorist attack.

Obama has yet to formally declare the Benghazi Attack a terrorist act.  You heard right.  After all of the brouhaha and the double talk he is still avoiding putting the label of Terrorist Attack on the night that four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al Qaeda.

Not only this, but he has yet to label the attack in 2009 at Fort Hood a Terrorist Attack.  Today, the families and victims took action:

“Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre released a new video this week calling on the government to classify the November 2009 shooting as a terrorist attack rather than “workplace violence,” a change that would make them eligible for specific combat-related benefits.

In the video, uploaded on YouTube Wednesday, witnesses to the shooting, some of whom were wounded in the attack, voiced their frustration with the government’s labeling of the attack in which 13 people died and 32 others were wounded in a shooting rampage allegedly carried out by a fellow soldier, Maj. Nidal Hasan. The FBI said Hasan had corresponded with a high-profile al Qaeda recruiter and discussed the merits of jihad months before the massacre.

“Looking at the red tape you’ve got to get through, we put the video together to try to raise awareness,” one of the victims, Army Staff Sgt. Alonza Lunsford, told ABC News.

In the video, police officer Kimberly Munley, who was shot multiple times, says, “It was discovered, has been discovered, re-discovered that this was part of a terrorist activity.”

“[The Fort Hood victims] were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy — somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying,” another victim, Army Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning says in the video. Manning was shot in the chest. “If that’s not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is.”

The Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, the organization that released the video, said in a statement that unless the government labels the attack terrorism, victims and their families will be “denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due,” in particular eligibility for the Purple Heart Medal, along with which comes veterans’ medical benefits and higher priority for veterans’ disability compensation.”

I am convinced that it is at the behest of President Obama that the Fort Hood Massacre remains a case of “Workplace violence”

 

Even though Nidal Hasan screamed “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, Obama still could not admit it was radical Islam.  At the time of the shooting he said, “we should not rush to judgment.”   Yet that same week a black college professor was mistakenly arrested because it appeared to neighbors he was breaking into the house.  Obama’s reaction to that before he had any facts was, “the police behaved stupidly.”In the psychology of Obama there is no radical Islam.  He simply cannot bring himself to confess the existence of a worldwide force of hatred and evil against the United States.

Whenever terror comes Obama must deny it. He must first blame America, a video, or anything that buys him time to deflect criticism of Islam.   Even after he had proof that Al Qaeda had killed Americans in Benghazi, he stood in the well of the United Nations and said that “those that denigrate the prophet of Islam should have no future.”  Yet, he has no such outrage when the National Endowment of the Arts pays for an art exhibit of a Crucifix in a jar of urine.

Why are we surprised? He wrote “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” This quote comes from age 261 of the paperback edition of The Audacity of Hope.

To Obama there is no war on terror because there is no radical Islam.  Again and again, he has shown his true loyalties and priorities.  One of the tenets of Islam teaches, “lie when it advances the cause of Islam.”  Indeed, he is following this to the letter.

Even now, he cannot admit that he lied to us all about Benghazi.  To this day, he will pivot, deflect and obfuscate whenever it pertains to radical Islam.   This is how he justifies the avalanche of misery he has allowed on the American public.  This is how he can cast aside the failure upon failure of his administration.  He lives in his own dangerous world.  Think of the damage he has done so far and think of what America will look like in four more years if he is still in office tearing us apart?

Three great lies in presidential history.

Three unforgettable lies by Presidents but Obama’s is the most dangerous one of all.

  1. Richard Nixon: “I am not a crook.”
  2. Bill Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman.”
  3. Barrack Obama: “I said that this was an act of terror.”

President Barack Obama “point-blank lied”  “I think the president indicted himself” on the Libya issue, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee said. “He point-blank lied on Libya. He never called it a terrorist attack. At the end of the speech in the Rose Garden, he said that ‘Acts of terror won’t shake the nation,’ then he went on seven times and talked about the fact that this thing was from a YouTube video.

If you come away with nothing from this blog at least get this:  Something happened last night that is a first in American history.  A moderator of a presidential debate stepped in at a key moment to protect Obama from the impact of a lie.  A lie so heinous, that in any other universe, it would end his chances for reelection.   Candy Crowley’s actions went way beyond bias.  She was literally a willing partner in a mass manipulation of the facts.

I told you the night before the debate that I felt troubled in the Spirit.  I knew that there was going to be some kind of trick.  I am certain that this is the very thing that I sensed was coming.

Obama lied about his remarks in the Rose Garden on September 12th.  This is crucial because it should be the nail in the coffin of his campaign.   He refused to call the attack an act of terror for some very shameful reasons. Read on.

Obama cannot express the natural outrage of a true American President.  For the first time since 1979 an American Ambassador has been assassinated!   Moreover, he was assassinated on of all days, September 11th.   Even when he had the chance to address the nation he condemned a video before he condemned the terrorists!

It gets worse.  Instead of calling for emergency action over an act of war on American soil, he leaves for Las Vegas to raise money for his campaign.  How could he do this without fear of a backlash?   Because he knew that the media would shield him from any such backlash.

It just gets even worse.  He lied when he said there was faulty intelligence.   He lied when he said they needed an ongoing investigation.   The State Department was watching the attack on a live feed in real time!   The attack went on for 8 hours!  They saw that there was no mob rioting over a video.  They could see that weapons and tactics were in play that were clearly preplanned and the work of Al Qaeda.

Can it get any worse?   Yes.  He instructs Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., to keep the charade going, and say to the public that the attack was because of the video.  Obama and Clinton make a commercial for Pakistani T. V., apologizing for the video.   Jay Carney tells the press corps that is all about the video.   Obama appears on The View and throws Hillary Clinton under the bus.  Joy Behar asks, “was this a terrorist act?  Your Secretary of State now says it was, what do you say?”   His reply, to his everlasting shame, “we are still doing an investigation.”

Two weeks pass.  He still shows no outrage over the assassination.  No plan to get those responsible.  And then the final infamy:  an act so jaw dropping outrageous that there are no words.   He stands there and says, in front of millions that from the very beginning, “I said, this was an act of terror.”

Like a ref in a fixed fight, Crowley laid low as long as she could.  When she saw the knockout punch coming from Romney, she jumped in, yet again, to save the anointed one.   The lie lives on.  And that is what makes this lie so dangerous.  In the past, the press worked to expose lies, now they are helping to cover them up. 

CATHOLIC BISHOPS ISSUE SCATHING RELEASE CALLING BIDEN‘S CONTRACEPTION CLAIM ’NOT A FACT’

CATHOLIC BISHOPS ISSUE SCATHING RELEASE CALLING BIDEN‘S CONTRACEPTION CLAIM ’NOT A FACT’

Posted on October 12, 2012 at 1:25pm by Billy Hallowell

As TheBlaze noted this morning, Vice President Joe Biden and Republican contender Paul Ryan clashed over abortion and religious freedom during last night’s debate. Among the statements that were made, Biden defended the administration against claims that the government is forcing Catholic organizations to violate conscience with the enforcement of the controversial contraception mandate.

On Friday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a statement, fact-checking Biden‘s commentary and railing against the notion that institutions will be free and clear from the mandate’s clauses.

Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the vice presidential debate at the Norton Center at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.

In a statement published on the bishops’ web site, church leaders sought to clarify Biden’s words about the regulation and its impact on faith-based institutions. Contrary to what Catholic leaders have been fighting against — even taking to the courts to try and prevent — Biden said during the debate that hospitals, schools and other religiously-affiliated groups — won’t have “to pay for contraception.”

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide,” he said. “That is a fact. That is a fact.”

The USCCB has come out strongly against Biden’s statements, claiming that they are not based on “fact.” Here’s the statement that the church put out in response to his proclamation:

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.“ That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to ”Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.“ That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation ”to pay for contraception“ and ”to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

The Catholic Church, faith-based colleges and even some businesses have sued over the mandate, showcasing the fact that Biden’s debate commentary on the matter is nowhere near as cut and dry as he claims. Based on currently regulations and a lack of specificity on behalf of the administration, the sentiment behind the bishops’ claims is correct.

 Faith leaders and free-speech advocates have also questioned the government’s new-found involvement in defining religious groups — something that they claim will inevitably result from officials‘ involvement in deciding which groups would and would not escape the mandate’s requirements.

Rev. Billy Graham endorses Mitt Romney

 

 

Rev. Billy Graham endorses Mitt Romney

Oct 11,

By KASIE HUNT

 

MONTREAT, N.C. (AP) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney met Thursday with Rev. Billy Graham, and the aging evangelist pledged to do “all I can” to help the GOP nominee win the presidency.

Romney went to see Graham and his son, the Rev. Franklin Graham, at the elderly evangelist’s mountaintop home in the mountains of western North Carolina.

“Prayer is the most helpful thing you can do for me,” Romney told the 93-year-old Graham.

The meeting came just days after Romney told a newspaper he would not pursue abortion-related legislation as president. Romney later insisted that he would be a “pro-life president.”

The Republican candidate said Thursday that Franklin Graham, also an evangelical leader, had been helping his presidential bid.

“What you’re planning, what your son has shown me, is going to be very, very helpful. And I appreciate that. It’s going to be terrific,” Romney said near the end of their 30-minute meeting. A handful of photographers and a camera crew witnessed the exchange, though no print reporters were allowed to see any part of the meeting.

Romney adviser Mark De Moss later said Romney and Franklin Graham had been discussing how the younger Graham is doing everything he can “to encourage churches to encourage their people to get out and vote.”

The Republican nominee has faced some difficulty making inroads with evangelical voters, in part because some believe his Mormon faith means he is not a Christian. Earlier this year, the younger Graham expressed support for primary rival Rick Santorum, a Catholic. Pressed during an interview on MSNBC, Graham would not say that Romney was a Christian.

“He is a Mormon,” Franklin Graham said in February. “Most Christians would not recognize Mormonism … but he would be a good president if he won the nomination.”

Franklin Graham also apologized for refusing, in the same interview, to say whether he believed President Barack Obama is a Christian.

Some evangelicals have also been skeptical because Romney once supported abortion rights, a critical issue with the Christian right. This week, Romney told The Des Moines Register editorial board that there wasn’t any abortion-related legislation he planned to pursue as president. A spokeswoman quickly clarified his remark, and on Wednesday, Romney told reporters that he is running as a “pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president.”

The Thursday meeting with the Grahams wasn’t placed on Romney’s official schedule, though the campaign had for days planned a rally in Asheville, N.C., the resort town near the Graham home.

The trek to see Graham – up a mountain on a narrow road marked by one hairpin turn after another – is a political ritual. John McCain visited in 2008 when he was the Republican nominee. Obama also tried to see him in 2008, when he was in Asheville preparing for the presidential debates, but Graham’s poor health prevented the meeting.

The president visited Graham at his home in 2010, when the Obamas went on vacation to Asheville. Obama and Graham have also spoken on the phone.

At the meeting, Romney and Graham discussed religious freedom and religious persecution, Romney adviser Mark DeMoss said. DeMoss, who sat in on the meeting, said they also discussed the growth of Graham’s ministry in China, Sudan and North Korea. Graham also mentioned Romney’s father, George, whom the elder Graham considered a friend.

Romney told Graham the story of how his father died. “He was on the treadmill one morning at age 88 and he’s jogging on the treadmill and his irregular heartbeat caused him to faint and there was no one there to revive him and so he passed away,” Romney said.

North Carolina voted narrowly for Obama in 2008.

Obama to allow United Nations to tax Americans

It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is re-elected.  But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly.  And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World.  In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.

In our new book, “Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom,” Eileen and I describe how there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth – not to other Americans – but to other countries.  These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress.  Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give.  They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens.  And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress —  only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board.  The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.

(Of course, we do not believe that actual black UN helicopters will land in our midst to take over our country.  But we use the symbolism to warn that the liberal, bureaucratic elites in the UN, enabled by Obama and Hillary, mean to create global governance to override American self-rule and independence).

Here is what we say in “Black Helicopters” that Obama, Hillary, and the UN are planning for us:

A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions.  Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while travelling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN.

A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).

A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit.  Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans.  Again the funds will go to the UN.

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty – up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session – offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world.

A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe.  Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world.

A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.

These taxes are, of course, only the first steps.  Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.

Is there any organizations less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations?  Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the UN is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations.  In “Black Helicopters,” we document how pervasive this corruption really is.- Dick Morris

THE LEFT IS IN FULL PANIC MODE AS POST DEBATE POLLS RELEASED. THEY BLAME OBAMA.

The Left is in Full Panic mode as polls come out.  Blame Obama.

I am bringing this information to you because I believe that God is hearing the cry of his people to stop the madness of Barrack Obama.   Here are the latest items that show panic  among the left and the Obama camp.

Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast is in full panic!

“The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Romney’s favorables are above Obama’s now. Yes, you read that right. Romney’s favorables are higher than Obama’s right now. That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall? Over in one night: On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.

Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.

Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying.

With President Obama holed up in a Nevada resort for debate practice, things can get pretty boring on the White House beat right now.  Pretty boring for Obama too, apparently. “Basically they’re keeping me indoors all the time,” Obama told a supporter on the phone during a visit to a Las Vegas area field office. “It’s a drag,” he added. “They’re making me do my homework.”

I’ve never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate – and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 2004 than Obama last week. Even Reagan’s meandering mess in 1984 was better – and he had approaching Alzheimer’s to blame.”

Scott Rasmussen said this morning: In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 49% support to Obama’s 47%. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

This is the first time Romney has led the daily Swing State Survey since September 19. Until today, the president had led for 17 of the previous 19 days, and the candidates had been tied twice. This survey is based on findings from the previous seven days, with most of the responses now coming since Romney’s debate win last Wednesday night.

Forty-six percent (46%) of these Swing State voters are now “certain” they will vote for Romney and will not change their minds. Forty percent (40%) are certain they will vote for the president.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin:

If this were not enough here’s news from Washington Times.  Dave Boyer of Washington times says Romney surges in Pennsylvania! Mitt Romney’s strong performance in the first presidential debate may have put Pennsylvania back in play, and closed the gap with President Obama in other battleground states.

A Siena Research Institute Poll on Tuesday showed the Republican nominee trailing Mr. Obama by only three percentage points, 43 percent to 40 percent, in the Keystone State. Other polls prior to the debate had shown Mr. Obama with as much as a 12-point lead.

“Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes suddenly appear to be up for grabs,” said poll director Don Levy. “Romney not only has Republican support but now leads in vote-rich areas outside of Philadelphia and also in the central part of the state. With a month and two more debates to go, Pennsylvania’s direction on the road to the White House remains in doubt.”

The Siena survey found 12 percent of the state’s voters undecided. The poll was conducted from Oct. 1 to Oct. 5; the debate took place on Oct. 3.

Meanwhile, the Republican also received a post-debate boost in Wisconsin, where a PPP survey found that Mr. Romney now trails the president by just two percentage points, 49 percent to 47 percent. Two weeks ago Mr. Romney trailed Mr. Obama by seven points there.

Keep praying.  Vote and get others to go and vote with you!