maddogs hideaway

David Petraeus testifies before Intelligence Committee

After two days of testimony at closed door House and Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, one fact has emerged: Someone in the Obama administration is playing fast and loose with the facts before, during and after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

As reported early Thursday evening, senior national security officials testified it was clear from the very start that the Benghazi consulate was subjected to a pre-planned armed assault. This information came to us from Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Saxby Chambliss who told Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, “It was very clear from day one this was a terrorist attack.”

The real blockbuster came during Friday’s hearing, when former CIA Director David Petraeus told the committee members that the CIA memo he prepared indicated that the raid was a planned assault involving al-Qaida affiliated terrorists and that there was no mention of a demonstration against an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

Somewhere that language got changed.  According to Rep. Pete King (R-LI), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, “Nobody knows where it was changed.”

Clearly upset, King continued, “ It was nobody in the intelligence community, so it goes to the Justice Department, State Department, White House — somewhere along the line.” According to a Fox News report,

King called for White House staff to testify in the committee’s probe of the botched response to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack “to see if anyone there changed the talking points . . . and why.”

“There is still a lot of unanswered questions,” he said of the Benghazi probe. “It’s far from over.”

Some lawmakers claimed the language in the talking points was changed so the terrorists wouldn’t be alerted that US authorities were on their trail. Others said that explanation was preposterous.

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He described the CIA talking points memo’s alteration as “either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence” by Obama and his administration.

Whether the memo was altered before or after it reached the White House, one thing is certain: The “buck stops” in the oval office.

Updated 3:00 pm ET --  Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday before congressional intelligence panels telling members that he had believed from the outset that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was an act of terrorists.

NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reported that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee said after hearing from Petraeus that Obama administration officials made a decision to hold back as classified information an explicit depiction of Benghazi incident as an act of terrorists -- therefore that description did not make it into the “talking points” that the administration prepared for officials when they went on TV talk shows and spoke to reporters.

Instead, the initial talking points focused on spontaneous reactions to an anti-Islamic video as a spark for the attack. Five days after attack, the administration dispatched U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to speak on the Sunday news shows to offer a preliminary explanation of the attack, which she attributed to an anti-Islamic video that was circulated on YouTube.

In the attack Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans – Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith – were killed.

Keeping as classified the determination that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists may have been done in order to help pursue those very same terrorists.

“There might have been two tracks happening all along: the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known” and the classified information that terrorists had been the ones attacking the consulate. “The real question is if they knew it was terrorism all along – was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved?” said O’Donnell.

House Intelligence Committee member Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters Friday after Petraeus testified that the initial “talking points” from the Obama administration to prepare officials for what they should say publicly in the first days after the attack had been changed to delete references to any al Qaida involvement in the event.

King said he and his colleagues now needed to hear testimony from officials in the State Department, the Defense Department “and also people at the White House – to see if anyone at the White House changed the talking points.”

King told reporters after Petraeus testified that “his testimony today was that from the start (immediately after Sept. 11) he had told us that this was a terrorist attack, that terrorism was involved from the start.”

But King said that he himself “had a very different recollection" of what Petraeus had told the panel in the initial aftermath of the attack. 

"The clear impression that we (members of the House Intelligence Committee) were given (in the initial days after the attack) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack,” King said. 

Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts after hearing from Petraeus that “I can’t agree that there was entirely an intelligence failure” in the days leading up to the attack.

He said, “The intelligence community did put people in the area of Benghazi and in Libya generally. It was a hot spot, it was an area where you had to be on high alert – they did not pick up the actual attack itself. So we’re evaluating whether or not it was or was not an intelligence failure.”

“We had less than a handful of security there for the ambassador,” Rooney said. “First of all, I don’t know why the ambassador was there on 9/11 to begin with, but that’s a whole other story. Second we were relying really on local Libyan militia who – if there was anything coordinated about the two attacks, at the compound and at the annex, it is that there was a coordinated absence by the people who were supposed to be protecting us.” He said the Libyan militia “were nowhere to be found” when the assault occurred. 

A House Foreign Affairs hearing on "Benghazi and Beyond" quickly turned into a shouting and accusations forum.

It began when Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said this: "What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed, read that LIED, to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy. Now President Obama has the gall to float the name as possibly secretary of State, the name of the person who is the actual vehicle used to misinform the American people during this crisis."

Karen Bleier / AFP - Getty Images

National Intelligence Director James Clapper arrives for a closed door hearing conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence November 15, 2012 on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat also from California, called the attacks on Rice "unfair" and leveled that Colin Powell testified that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, because that's the information that was given to him.

"This is not simply a cover up of a third-rate burglary," he alleged. "We have four of our personnel dead, and it is not a McCarthy-era tactic to demand accountability and to demand that American people are not misinformed about it to the point that they don't know what the threat is."

The back and forth continued when Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, also accused the administration of lying.

"This administration continues to put out things that are just not quite true," she claimed.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) began by saying he was not going to attack the White House or malfeasance at the State Department. But he then instead spoke for six minutes and didn't ask a single question of the GAO witness.

Naturally, Democrats responded. It began rather timidly and escalated.

"Barack Obama was no more responsible for what happened in Benghazi than George Bush was for Sept. 11th or Ronald Reagan was for the blowing up of U.S. Marines in Beirut," Rep. Eliot Engle (D-NY) said.

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) unloaded, first sarcastically: "Let's just hang the guilty parties."

"The stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city today emanates from this room," Ackerman said. "I've listened to my colleagues talk about the President of the United States and others in the administration using [the] terms 'deliberate', 'lies', 'unmitigated gall', 'malfeasance,' which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, 'disgust', 'coverups'."

He continued, "If you want to know who is responsible in this town, buy yourself a mirror!"

Ackerman went on to say that Republicans had "the audacity to come here" when the administration requested, for worldwide security, "$440 million more than you guys wanted to provide. And the answer is that you <snip> didn't provide it!  You REDUCED what the administration asked for to protect these people. Ask not who the guilty party is, it's you! It is us. It is this committee, and the things that we insist that we need have to cost money."

He added, "Could you tell me which of my colleagues on this committee was as bodacious in their insistence that we provide more money for American security in the State Department budget. I would appreciate it."

Ackerman then asked them to raise their hands and gave them a count of five to do so. None did.

Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) picked up the push back. He held up a letter, dated yesterday, in which he was asked to co-sign saying that Susan Rice is unfit to be secretary of State. 

"Smear, character assassination, judgment before all the facts are in is McCarthyism," Connolly said, "and that's an attempt to besmirch, in my opinion, the reputation of a very talented and capable public servant. I want no part of it."

He added, "The election is over. The president won reelection. The voices of the public were heard. They want us to cooperate. If you want an honest investigation of this tragedy, we will join you. But if you want to persist in trying to put this, lay this somehow at the doorstep of the president or the secretary of State or the United Nations ambassador, you will find us ready and willing to resist  to the teeth."

And that was just the first half of the hearing.

An overnight firestorm of cyber-messaging is asking that volunteers come to Florida’s St. Lucie County and serve as observers for Allen West’s recount challenge!  Fears and allegations of massive voter fraud are spilling out across the web immediately following a sham recount in the West-Murphy battle for US Congress, even as local media play this down.

I received a late night blog post out of New York called CONSTITUTIONAL EMERGENCY, begging people to show up on Florida’s Treasure Coast to help America’s retired colonel get an honest recount from longtime Democrat machine Election Supervisor Gertrude Walker.

Meanwhile, out of California, a Michael Savage Facebook page referenced by LDotter reveals that at the Harbor Ridge Clubhouse polling place in Port St. Lucie, 850 registered voters cast 1,550 cards, making for a 182.35% turnout!  You can read the entire 170 page PDF file of Walker’s Statement of Votes cast in St. Lucie County’s 2012 General Election, all counters, all races.

The St. Lucie County GOP put out a fiery press statement with quotes from Tim Edson, West’s campaign manager, vowing to pursue every “legal means necessary to ensure a fair election” and to hold Gertrude Walker accountable!  “Nothing about this story adds up,” says the release.  Calling her recount a sham, the West people are questioning the St. Lucie County Board of Elections’ original decision to recount the entire early vote, which was abruptly changed at an “emergency” 7:00 a.m. meeting last Sunday to count only early votes on November 1, 2, and 3.

Tempers of average citizen observers at this meeting flared when Walker’s people refused to talk to them and law enforcement forced everyone to leave. You can view a positively chilling video showing the crass manner in which American voters were treated by their elected officials.

Additionally, a false Sunday morning e-mail circulated warning people to stay away from Walker’s Orange Blossom mall headquarters on Okeechobee Road in Ft. Pierce.  I was there. I saw no angry mobs or riots. In fact, the only truly “angry” individual was the local Scripps outlet reporter who THREW my business card back at me when I identified myself as a Conservative blogger (CIR) whose readers include many retired military and police members.  The Palm Beach Post’s political reporter openly derided me when I questioned him about his paper’s liberal bias!

What I’m left with this morning as I post this report is an overwhelming sense of sadness from viewing many Vietnam veterans who stood long hours at yesterday’s emergency recount.  One tall vet proudly stood at attention wearing a leather vest covered with many Nam insignias.  A blood red patch stated “Never Surrender.”  Linda, a West supporter, said to me: “100% of people in some counties all voted for Obama in PA and CO. . .totally unheard of. . .It’s a sham. . I fear for my grandchildren.”  A stoic Afro-American veteran in his 70s hugged me and said he was at the West recount because he admires what the Colonel did for America.

A commenter is alerting web readers that “There is a November 16 deadline for overseas military ballots; do we just forget about those?”  But a plane carrying many of those Florida military ballots recently crashed in Afghanistan, and nothing further has been said about these votes.  Pictures now are surfacing of Ethiopians bussed into some OH polling places; “95% couldn’t speak English,” someone said.  The Constitutional Crisis everyone feared before the election may now be underway, and the internet is alive with Allen West supporters wanting answers!

It didn’t take long. The layoffs and closings are piling up. The saddest thing about compiling this list is that by the time today is over, the list will probably have grown dramatically. The next saddest part is that at least some of these laid off employees voted for Barack Obama because they didn’t believe this would happen.

These are more than just headlines. Every number represents  real people who have lost their livelihood.

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division cut 30% of workforce

Anonymous employer in Los Vegas: “I have 114 employees. I’m firing 22”

Momentive Inc. plans 150 “temporary” layoffs” – Tyler County West Virginia

Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania “voluntary furloughs” for 300 town workers. Joe Biden’s gift to his old neighborhood

Berks County Pennsylvania Exide Technologies to lay off 150 workers

Groupon is starting with 80 employee layoffs. But more will certainly follow as the stock price has dropped from $20.00 to $3.85 in the past year

TE Connectivity to close Guilford North Carolina plant to lay off 620

50 Layoffs at Anniston Alabama weapons incinerator plant

Murray Energy of Steubenville Ohio to layoff 150

Associated Milk Producers of Worthington Minnesota has laid off 130 workers

Stanford Brake plant of Lincoln County Kentucky to lay off 75 by Christmas

TurboCare, Oce Manchester and East Hartford Connecticut laying off more than 220 workers

ATI of North Richland Hills Texas to layoff 172

SpaceX –  Rocketdyne Hawthorne California lays off 100

Providence Journal lays off 23 full time employees

CVPH of Plattsburgh New York to lay off 17

New Energy of Indiana lays off final 40 workers and closes up

102 East Carbon Utah miners lose jobs – war on coal KIAs

U.S. Cellular in Chicago cuts 640 workers and Obama fans get what they voted for

Career Education cutting 900 jobs across Illinois

Vesta Wind Systems cutting 3,000 Oregon getting what THEY voted for!

FirstEnergy Akron Ohio cuts 200

Energizer of St. Louis to cut about 1,500 in Vermont and Missouri

West Ridge Mine a Utah coal company has laid off 102 miners

Strap yourself in, America and prepare for this to get much worse before it gets better.

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically  acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his  path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he  speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful, good society’ which shall now be  Rome’s, interpreted to mean: more money, more ease, more security, more living  fatly at the expense of the industrious.

                                                                         ~Marcus Tullius Cicero

I concur — but, let me add, I also hold Caesar culpable. Peter Hitchens (conservative brother of the late Christopher Hitchens)  wrote the following in conclusion of the election of Obama: “And now the US,  like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World.  How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?” I believe the  last, best hope for this world still lies in America. But it’s time for some  soul-searching. If those of us who knew what the truth was and failed to share  it with our neighbors because we assumed that believing was all that was  required to prevail … we were tragically wrong. Conservatives do NOT have a  platform problem, we have a communication problem. It was the reason we lost  this race and it will continue to be the reason for many more loses if we fail  to correct one major flaw: We love to use the name of Reagan, but fail to share  the same as Reagan. He knew his plan was the right one for America … and he  never backed down from that. What he DID do was, as the Great Communicator, find  a way to tell those on the opposing side: Our plan is good for YOU and good for  all Americans … come join us! We know our plan is good (I hope) … now let’s work hard for the next four years to communicate that plan. Let’s honor the Gipper’s memory … and bless America again. Let’s turn our mourning … into morning once more, in  America!

Now I understand! For years, many veterans and active military have been alarmed about the idiocy of the changes in battlefield aeromedical evacuation known as Dust Off. For reasons having nothing to do with patient care, Dust Off has been removed from the control of the professionals, the medics, and put under the control of amateurs, aviation staff officers, or ASOs. This is the first such change since the Civil War.

In the words of Gen. Creighton Abrams, former U.S. Army chief of staff and former supreme commander in Vietnam: “A special word about the Dust Offs … Courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them. It was a daily thing, part of the way they lived. That’s the great part, and it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dust Off was there. It was a great thing for our people.”

Fast forward to current battlefields. We hear horror stories about patients waiting and dying because Dust Off didn’t launch or came too late. The launch standard in my unit in Vietnam was two minutes; today it is 15 minutes! Can anyone imagine a fire truck taking 15 minutes to get under way? I could go on and on, but one has to ask, why? Why the changes to an excellent, proven system?

The answer is the Obama-Panetta Doctrine. In response to the horrible abandonment of dying Americans in Benghazi, Defense Secretary Panetta said: “(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.”

On its face, that is a remarkable, indeed incomprehensible, change from America’s doctrine in past wars. By that standard, there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact, I can’t think of a war we fought in which we didn’t go into harm’s way without real-time information or to save lives – something the president refused to do in Benghazi. Dust Off would never launch in Vietnam under that doctrine.

Medal of Honor recipient Gen. Patrick Brady tells the inspiring, miraculous story of his days as a Dust Off air ambulance pilot in Vietnam. Get his newly reissued book, autographed: “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam.”

To fully understand the doctrinal change, one has to understand President Obama. He has a dearth of understanding of our military and military matters. We hear he is uncomfortable in the presence of ranking military and seldom meets with them. He is not a person who can make decisions, and he takes an extraordinary amount of time to do so, leading to such unseemly labels for a commander in chief as “ditherer in chief.”

President Obama may have set records for voting “present” on important issues. He cowers from crisis decisions.He is a politician who thinks only in terms of votes and his image. Although I was a psychology major back in the day (I’d love to hear a professional analyze risk and Obama), I won’t try to define his insides, but I believe he is risk-averse – fearful of risk – and that is the basis of the Obama-Panetta doctrine.

This aversion for risk dominates Dust Off rescue operations where, in addition to an unconscionable reaction time, risk assessment is the primary consideration for mission launch – not patient care. In two years flying Dust Off in Vietnam, I never heard that term, nor did any Dust pilot I know. The ASOs, remote from the battle, have developed time-consuming algorithms to analyze risk while the patient bleeds, something that’s impossible to do by anyone other than the pilot and the ground forces at the scene.

And Obama’s terror of risk contributed to the massacre of Americans by terrorists in Benghazi. We hear that the president did not even convene the Counterterrorism SecurityGroup while the Benghazi terrorist massacre was visually and verbally available in real time. That is like ignoring FEMA during Hurricane Sandy. But once you bring in a group labeled anti-terrorist, you have to acknowledge terror exists, something the president is loath to do.

My veteran friends are horrified by the Obama-Panetta doctrine. At least 359 retired flag officers support Mitt Romney – only five that I know of support Obama. Some 150 former prisoners of war also support Romney; I know of none who support Obama.

America needs to listen to these veterans. They understand leadership. They know how to deal with risk in war. They would not want this man with them in combat or crisis. They never left a needy comrade behind. Obama did.

Documents obtained by former Muslim Brotherhood member Walid Shoebat reportedly demonstrate the Obama administration is to blame for the deaths of Americans in the Benghazi consulate attack because it effectively empowered the Islamic terrorist organization al-Qaida to take over governance of Libya.

Shoebat reports a group of anti-al-Qaida Libyans in exile have come into possession of some highly classified documents that, in their view, “will bring the Obama Administration down.”

The group has already provided the copy of a letter that, as WND reported, suggests the Obama administration approved assigning a member of al-Qaida to handle security at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

“The rest [of the documents],” Shoebat’s sources say, “will be provided when Mitt Romney is in office. His election is our only hope for humanity.”

But Shoebat has provided a glimpse into the evidence that is reportedly on its way: “They include passports of al-Qaida operatives and identifications of terrorists from many nations – Chad, Egypt and Pakistan to name a few – which are now all camped in Libya as they enter by crossing borders guarded and managed officially by what they called ‘government appointed al-Qaida leaders.’”

Shoebat says claims there are “countless documents,” which will soon be turned over to the National Center for Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism.

“They show evidence of bribes [see image at right] by the government to top officials, weapons dealing and bank siphoning by al-Qaida operatives, to include copies of bank transactions that illustrate the subordination of the newly established Libyan government to al-Qaida,” Shoebat asserts. “These included [Osama] bin Laden’s personal driver Sufyan Gammou and Abdul Wahhab Hassan Qayed, the brother of the recently assassinated Abu Yahya al-Libi. Qayed was officially put in charge of Libyan border control. This arrangement is responsible for the passage of large amounts of al-Qaida operatives into Libya.”

Shoebat’s sources claim the documents demonstrate that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were not merely the result of an intelligence failure, but of negligent, willful ignorance of al-Qaida’s influence in Libya.

“It wasn’t failure,” these pro-U.S. agents reportedly said, “but the Libyan government’s mafia-like system, subordinate to al-Qaida and installed with the blessings of the Obama administration that is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi.”

The Benghazi controversy has been developing since Sept. 11 when on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an organized terror attack.

While evidence now indicates the White House knew almost immediately it was an organized, planned terrorist attack, for weeks officials blamed the deaths on Muslim anger over a trailer of an online movie critical of Muhammad.

Reports now have emerged that there were orders for the U.S. military to stand down and not respond to calls for help from Benghazi.

Shoebat is the grandson of the Muslim mukhtar, or village head, of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem, who was a friend of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Ameen al-Husseni, an ally of Adolf Hitler.

After serving as a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and participating in acts of terror against Israel, Shoebat studied the Tanach, the Jewish Bible, in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam.

Six month later, he says, he realized that everything he “had been taught about Jews was a lie.”

Convinced he had been on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy

Posted: 11/02/2012 12:12 pm EDT Updated: 11/02/2012 12:23 pm EDT

Romney: “We don’t need a secretary of business…we need a president who understands business”

President Obama recently showed his cards that he doesn’t have any interest in helping businesses, only taking money from them and redistributing it. The president has touted the idea of a Secretary of Business, which might as well be known as a “crony capitalist czar.”

The president has shown throughout his four years that not only does he not understand business, he doesn’t really care to. His cabinet is comprised of pointy-headed academics with less combined business experience than any administration in modern American history.  Perhaps one of these days, he might learn that he already has a Secretary of Commerce.

The results coming out of Obama’s coterie of clusterschtupps have been disastrous: celebration over pathetic 2.0% GDP growth, over 23 million jobless, 53% of new college grads unable to find real jobs, and 47 million on food stamps. This isn’t all a coincidence, and the housing market bust is not solely to blame.

The Democrats’ economic policies never lead to success, because in their eyes, the private sector exists to loot and give away to unions and other special interest groups. General Motors, for example, was a company whose bondholders could be stiffed and their assets given away to union members. The president’s corrupt attitude towards business is also demonstrated by the dozens of green energy enterprises like Solyndra and Abound Solar that our own “capitalism czar” Barack Obama bet on — and lost. No matter, it wasn’t his money to invest in the first place.

The Democratic Party’s hubris is also displayed by the federal money sent by the president to explicitly aid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 2010 election campaign. Then again, no one blinks when Harry Reid and his son are caught up in a clear financial conflict of interest over how to spend taxpayer money, because it is a foregone conclusion that Washington politicians have the power and authority to “run the economy.”

This is not to let Republicans off the hook. The GOP has its own particular brand of corruption, mainly through splurging on defense contracts that are not thoroughly purged of waste and graft. Many of the horrible Obama economic policies of the last four years were really bad Bush economic policies of the preceding eight years (bailouts, stimulus, expensive government-run healthcare programs, etc.).

But Romney’s business practices show that he is an advocate of the market system; and even if one disagrees with the sometimes painful process of making businesses lean and profitable, there is nothing to suggest that Romney is an outright crony corporatist — or else we would all know about it (and not be hearing incessantly about his tax returns and about the “binders full of women” gaffe). And too many people either dismiss or are not aware of Romney’s criticism of The Fed.

A Secretary of Business would be just one more perfidious pointman in a federal government that is the corruption superhighway for the nation.  If we can’t get a president who will change all the traffic lights to red, we can at least get one who will change them to yellow.

“At this point…Gallup Daily tracking of likely voter preferences suggests Obama has lost more support than he could afford to, given his current [51% to 45%] deficit to his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.”

If this sounds like good news, the Gallup 7 day tracking poll has even better.  Mitt Romney has been ahead of Barack Obama for the past several days with the October 27 result of 51-45, once again putting the challenger over the 50% level into territory which Obama has failed to approach for a very long time.

And now,  according to Gallup’s “demographics of likely voters,” it appears the 2012 election will find more Republicans than Democrats heading to the polls on November 6^th!

Over the past few years, more voters have been identifying themselves as Republican and fewer as Democrat. As Gallup sees it, this means that “…the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.” In 2004, Republican voters outnumbered Democrats by a 39-37 margin in the Gallup poll with 24% identifying themselves as independent. This year, Gallup’s numbers have Republicans holding a 36-35 advantage while “leaning” voters favor the GOP by 49-46. In 2008, Democrats held a 10 point advantage in this important demographic. And many polls—especially those of mainstream media representatives—are still using a near 2008 breakage between the parties, polling Democrats in 2012 with a turnout advantage of between 5 to 13 points!

In 2004, the final Gallup result prior to Election Day gave George Bush a 2 point advantage over John Kerry. And Bush won the election by just that margin. If Mitt Romney’s current 6 point advantage should hold for the next 10 days, even the most egregious Democrat voter fraud in swing states would probably not be enough to put Obama over the finish line. For Obama has not gained ground among any of his base voter blocs. In fact, it is believed he will lose support among Catholics, Jews, women, men and even blacks. A current Survey USA poll gives Obama just 70% of the black vote in Ohio while Romney earns 22%, a remarkable result which could not have occurred just a few years ago.  And the 16 point edge which Obama had among women voters was just 4 points a week ago and is now virtually gone according to a Rasmussen poll.

Naturally anything can happen between now and Election Day. The ancient drunk driving charge so eagerly advanced by the liberal media against George Bush turned a virtual sure thing into a very close election in 2004.

But it’s the 4-year performance of Barack Obama that will drive voters in the 2012 election and neither the very excited Republican base nor even independents will be diverted from throwing the Marxist, Chicago thug out of the White House. And with a Republican advantage in numbers on Election Day, we could witness a blowout which will make news anchors weep on election night.