Saturday, January 30, 2010

Obama the Liar!

As you are aware, the Constitution of the United States has established 3 separate and distinct branches of government that are equal in power -- The Executive Branch (President), The Judicial Branch (The Supreme Court of the US) and the Legislative Branch (Congress & Senate).

In the first year of this President the two other branches of government have had instances where they have called or implied that the Chief Executive is a liar.

The first incident was when the President was addressing "the Joint Session of Congress" (which is normally scheduled for major issues and not for pending legislation such as Health Care).  Joe Wilson's shouting "you lie" to the statement of Obama that the bill did not contain a provision covering illegal aliens brought much consternation from the MSM as well as the Democratic and Republicans alike.

The second instance  was during the "State of the Union" when Obama attacked the recent SCOTUS decision that overturned portions of the McCain/Feingold law.  More specifically was Obama's comment that the ruling would allow foreign corporaions to flood the elections with heaps of compaign contributions.  Justice Alito did not verbalize his disagreement but mouthed, silently, "not true" which was caught on camera.

In the first instance Wilson did breach the professional decorum of the House with his outburst, but it does not diminish the fact that Obama lied.

In the second instance, again, the President was untruthful as well as disrespectful towards the SCOTUS members who sat directly in front of his "podium".

That said, both instances of untruthful words are fact.  It is one thing to be addressing a group of people in an "unscripted" speech and get your facts wrong because it happens.  Then again it is something quite different when you have an army of fact checkers and speech writers that prepare your speeches, aided by a teleprompter and get facts wrong.  This show's malice of untruth.

To compound these two acts of brazen dishonesty, Obama has already racked up quite of litany of untruthful declarations, promises and utterances on many different fronts.

The crediblity gap is widening between the public at large and the dishonest in chief.

In a court of law, if your testimony is untruthful or you have a history of falsifying facts (lying) then your credibility is "impeached" and your words are given absolutely "no weight".  This is what Obama is currently suffering.

Obama's credibility has been impeached so many times by the lies, distortions and fantasy he has created out of whole cloth like the man he cited that was refused medical treatment by insurers (only to find he had insurance) or his staff handing out "lab coats" for his manufactured White House doctor roundup.  The American public simply does not trust his words or actions any more.

The arrogance that the President exhudes that his words are still golden in itself is insulting because he continues to speak down to us as children.

His disdain for the Constitution is evident and his oath to defend it in question.  It will be interesting to view the upcoming Blagojevich trial when Obama is called to testify.  How much weight will his words carry and how much trouble will the President have if Blago implicates him and his Cabinet members Rahm and Jarrett?

The lies have piled up and with all liars, he will have a hard time keeping them straight.

Friday, January 29, 2010

US Marine corp recruit from "Fly-over Country"

From Guano Loco:

"A farm kid in the Marines"

Dear Ma and Pa,

I am well. Hope you are. Tell Brother Walt and Brother Elmer the Marine Corps beats working for old man Minch by a mile. Tell them to join up quick before all of the places are filled.

I was restless at first because you get to stay in bed till nearly 6 a.m. But I am getting so I like to sleep late. Tell Walt and Elmer all you do before breakfast is smooth your cot, and shine some things. No hogs to slop, feed to pitch, mash to mix, wood to split, fire to lay. Practically nothing.

Men got to shave but it is not so bad, there's warm water. Breakfast is strong on trimmings like fruit juice, cereal, eggs, bacon, etc., but kind of weak on chops, potatoes, ham, steak, fried eggplant, pie and other regular food, but tell Walt and Elmer you can always sit by the two city boys that live on coffee. Their food, plus yours, holds you until noon when you get fed again. It's no wonder these city boys can't walk much.

We go on 'route marches,' which the platoon sergeant says are long walks to harden us. If he thinks so, it's not my place to tell him different. A 'route march' is about as far as to our mailbox at home. Then the city guys get sore feet and we all ride back in trucks.

The sergeant is like a school teacher. He nags a lot. The Captain is like the school board. Majors and colonels just ride around and frown. They don't bother you none.

This next will kill Walt and Elmer with laughing. I keep getting medals for shooting. I don't know why. The bulls-eye is near as big as a chipmunk head and don't move, and it ain't shooting at you like the Higgett boys at home. All you got to do is lie there all comfortable and hit it. You don't even load your own cartridges They come in boxes.

Then we have what they call hand-to-hand combat training. You get to wrestle with them city boys. I have to be real careful though, they break real easy. It ain't like fighting with that ole bull at home. I'm about the best they got in this except for that Tug Jordan from over in Silver Lake .. I only beat him once... He joined up the same time as me, but I'm only 5'6' and 130 pounds and he's 6'8' and near 300 pounds dry.

Be sure to tell Walt and Elmer to hurry and join before other fellers get onto this setup and come stampeding in.

Your loving daughter,


Thursday, January 28, 2010

The “buck stops with me”!

His “buck” as well as America’s, is worthless!

The President has uttered these words on multiple occasions now. The first time was on

July 15, 2008 on Larry King Live when he said the following:

“Sen. Barack Obama said that if he's elected president in November, he will seek input from military commanders on the Iraq war and the fighting in Afghanistan. "But ultimately, the buck stops with me," he told CNN's "Larry King Live" in a wide-ranging interview Tuesday.”

Then on March 18, 2009 amid the AIG bonus controversy this is what he said:

"Just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of, that has existed for far too long: excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking," he said.

The president said he wants legislation providing greater regulation of financial institutions like AIG so taxpayers won't be left "holding the bag" when companies fail.

"As we work toward getting ourselves out of the recession, I hope that Wall Street and the marketplace doesn't think that we can return to business as usual," he said.

"The buck stops with me," Obama told reporters.

Obama also said he has "complete confidence" in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, whose handling of the situation with AIG has come under harsh criticism in Congress.

Obama said that Geithner has been "making all the right moves in playing a bad hand."

Then on January 7, 2010 he told reporters the following when addressing the US Intelligence failures surrounding the “Christmas Day” terror attack:

“President Barack Obama declared Thursday "the buck stops with me" for the nation's security, taking responsibility for failures that led to the near-disastrous Christmas attack on a Detroit-bound airliner and vowing the problems would be corrected. He said the lapses were widespread but suggested no officials would be fired.”

OK, we get it now. In regards to military, economic and terror related issues Obama admits that the failures are his responsibility as “the buck stops with him”!

Last night during the “State of the Union” it appears that that “buck” is being passed along to everyone except the President. For instance – “At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)”

He blames Republicans for stalling health care when Republicans were powerless to stop it with the majority in the House and the Super Majority in the Senate. He blames partisan bickering for hostile climates that have stalled his agenda, again I refer to the above majorities the Democrats have.

No, it does not appear that Obama believes he is responsible for his massive failures while in office that are due to the radical nature that most Americans do not want, or need. It is a lack of imagination and a lack of accountability that fuels this megalomaniac who blames America first before making a modest token of words of his responsibility that no one believes.

It is apparent that "Obama's money" is worthless!


Democrats have been right all along!

In January 2008, published an article that pretty much captured the Democrats view of the GOP. It also captured the rank and file “conservatives” view of the GOP as well. When I say “rank and file” I do not refer to those who walk in lock step with the GOP but those who ultimately rose up and filled the ranks of the “tea party and town hall movements”.

At the time of the article it was apparent that the GOP was not the GOP of old but a new GOP that looked, felt and acted like the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh touched on his beliefs recently that conservatives need to back the GOP instead of being caught up in the hype of the tea party movement as a “third party” or else risk decades of Democratic rule. In a way he is correct up to the point of voting for GOP members to stop this phenomenon.

My wife and I have had this discussion about the concern of the lack of conservative candidates in the GOP line up. This discussion was ultimately held when John McCain was the ultimate choice to oppose Barack Obama. described it best:

The GOP race is great fun to watch -- if you're a Democrat. The uninspiring candidates wander hat in hand from state to state, each being ritually humiliated in turn. If this process continues right up to the convention, the whole snooze-inducing crew may quit in disgust and the GOP will have to hold a mass séance to conjure up the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

Let's go down the list. This week's frontrunner, John McCain, is trying to create an aura of inevitability after his victory in South Carolina, but he is still viewed with deep suspicion by his party's true believers. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over McCain on conservative Web sites makes the Clinton-Obama dustup look like a love-in. Their posters can't forgive him for his stances on immigration, campaign finance and the environment, but what really drives them crazy is that he says things that they don't agree with. Sometimes he even commits the ultimate sin -- he sounds like a liberal!”

I believe that the resurgence of conservative principles began when McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. It was the solid conservative beliefs (that Palin represented coupled with a personal history of behavior that could be verified) that woke up this beast that ultimately became the tea party and town hall movements.

You can track this resurgence of conservatism by the ferocity and disgusting full frontal attack from the left and their MSM allies against Palin. They knew she needed to be slayed because of the immediate appeal she generated that eclipsed the popularity (if you can call it that) of McCain himself.

Suddenly, people across America were talking about how strong Palin was when compared to the Presidential candidate himself. Yep, this figurehead needed to die before it gained any further traction.

So, it is true that the GOP (as it has become) is dead. The GOP is viewed as “Democrat light”. How many times have you heard that when you listen to GOP members of Congress and compare them to the liberal members of Congress they sound and act alike, thus the poor “favorable ratings”?

The tide is turning and the GOP is fearful. You have to give the Republican members of the House and Senate some credit though because they have received the tea party and town hall message loud and clear and have put up a united front of opposition in their voting against the massive legislation called health care.

In spite of this stance, some members of the House and Senate will be punished by losing their incumbency to the fact they voted for stimulus with the Democrats or have a liberal voting track record that will be too late for them to save their own seats.

I believe that the GOP will be purged of the RINO’s in their midst by those who act and sound like tea partiers and town hall’ers. The distrust of politicians in general will also mean that if you run on a conservative platform that is desirable to these groups, they will be watched closely to ensure that it was not just a means to an end to get elected.

I also believe that the weak field the GOP put up to counter the socialists in the last Presidential race then again in the NY 23’d congressional race when they backed Scarrafaza over the true conservative (Doug Hoffman) has ended. The outrage of the GOP backing forced the GOP to abandon Scarrafaza (albeit too late to matter) and subsequently back Hoffman. Additionally, the GOP was forced to explain itself as to why the GOP backed the liberal candidate at all.

Hoffman is the prime example of the vacuum of the GOP fecklessness that was created and ultimately filled by an unknown individual who came out of the conservative wilderness to rise to the challenge and competitiveness needed to unseat liberals and replace weak GOP candidates.

The left now advocates Palin to run for President in 2012 and there is concern that the GOP will field the same tired list of Presidential contenders in 2012 (Romney, Huckabee, Jindal and Guilliani).

That is about to change and in fact you can see glimmers of unknowns that will rise to the top of the possible pool of Presidential challengers to replace the old vanguard choices of the GOP listed above. For instance, as soon as the results were in and Brown defeated Coakley we were treated to headlines across America asking Brown if he was going to run for President before he could even cast his first Senate vote. Conservatives are not that stupid to get caught up in that rhetoric and speculation. Though Brown pulled off the impossible, he will be watched closely by the masses that elected him to keep him honest and true to the promises he made to get elected.

That said, it is exactly that “glimmer” to which I am referring to. This point is driven further home by the response to the “State of the Union” by the other conservative victor of recent by Bob McDonald.

McDonald invoked words from the founding fathers, espoused limited government and returning the power to the people. These are the exact sentiments of the tea party and town hall movements.

He said

“It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ….and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned…" He was right.

Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.

Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs 'immediately' and hold unemployment below 8%.

In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren.

The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household.

This is simply unsustainable. The President's partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one.

The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.

Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.

In recent months, the American people have made clear that they want government leaders to listen and act on the issues most important to them.

We want results, not rhetoric. We want cooperation, not partisanship.

There is much common ground.

All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality.

But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.

Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes.

We will do that by implementing common sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your healthcare.

And our solutions aren't thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests.

In fact, many of our proposals are available online at, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.

All Americans agree, this nation must become more energy independent and secure.

We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all.

Advances in technology can unleash more natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your utility bills.

Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore.

But this Administration’s policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes.

Now is the time to adopt innovative energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.”

Does any of this sound familiar?

The rise of conservatism is starting to jell and solidify and politicians like McCain are soon to be replaced by more McDonalds, Hoffman’s and Browns. The 2010 elections are going to interesting indeed. It is not just Democrat seats at stake, but Republicans as well.

The weakness of the GOP’s choice in McCain as the frontrunner to Obama is indicative of things not to come (hopefully). During the campaign, McCain simply would not fight Obama. Remember the flap over Obama’s middle name and how McCain responded by publicly scorning those who used it and thus refused to go negative. McCain also refused to push Obama’s radical friends concern (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc). McCain was also weakened before he ran because of his aligning himself with those who were trying to give illegal amnesty and the “Maverick” status he had with snubbing his nose at Republicans to work with those across the aisle. It was obvious to most that McCain was a Republican, but was not a “conservative” Republican.

An irony in the past Presidential election was a prime example of this when the very bill that he co-authored with a democrat (McCain-Feingold bill) was just struck down as unconstitutional and an affront to “free speech”. The McCain/Feingold bill was one of the reasons Obama had the “funding” edge over McCain in the end.

McCain has now found his negative side that he refused to use against the socialist Obama and is employing all means of negativity against a true conservative that is running against him in the 2010 elections.

Powerful allies of McCain have mounted a campaign of threats and intimidation against JD Hayworth and the clear channel radio show he airs. The political machinations are hammering that station with threats of “campaign” law violations because they accuse him of using his role on the air that is tantamount to “free political airtime” against McCain.

At the same time, it is McCain that is utilizing his status on the “Commerce Committee” to mount this attack because the Commerce Committee overseas the FEC.

The McCain deception

There are many aspects of McCain that conservatives have a “beef with”. Specifically there are three that come to mind:

1) McCain/Feingold legislation
2) McCain support for Amnesty of illegal immigrants, and
3) McCain opposition to “enhanced interrogation” methods

The first and third are direct results of “his life experiences”! The second is simply to garner Hispanic voters in an attempt to align himself with their cause.

The life experiences I speak of in regards to McCain/Feingold come directly as a result of the criticism he experienced in his 2000 “Presidential run” as a result of his participation in the “Keating 5” scandal. To counter this negative blemish he “over-reached” in his attempt to show he is not the man he used to be when he was caught up in that event.

McCain/Feingold went into law on 11/6/2002.

Then, during the run up to the Presidential campaign McCain again reacted from his life experience as a POW to turn against the “enhanced interrogation” tactics that have shown to be effective in the war on terror.

Do not for a moment think that this author does not believe that McCain is not a genuine American hero for his military service because he is. His family, as well as himself have a long history of exemplary military service. He embodies the quintessential American spirit of patriotism in his service not only in the military, but in Public Office.

I am saying that his judgment has been “colored” by his own torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese captors and has played into the socialist dismantling of our intelligence capabilities which have been recently spotlighted in this Administrations handling of the Christmas day bomber as well as the Ft. Hood terrorist.

The three examples listed above is exactly why McCain will fight more aggressively for this re-election bid than he did against Obama. He is employing tactics against a true conservative (Hayworth) which he should have done against the socialist Obama. This is why McCain is toast. His political life is over and it will be telling who the GOP endorses as the candidate for the seat. Will it be with the traditional conservative that embodies the tea party spirit or will the GOP endorse a candidate in McCain that looks more and more like Scarafazza?

One thing is for sure, there will not be a lack of new faces coming out of the crowds that have been against big government. When the 2010 Congressional elections are over, there will be many stars which we can choose from to unseat the Marxist President. More important is the fact that we will have time to watch and see who lives up to the will of the people and those who elected by them.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

On her deathbed, the old, Grey Lady weakly coughs, and asks……….

Who, who, who is Barack Obama?

In an Op-Ed column written by one of Obama’s chief “water carriers” (Robert Herbert) historically, finally asks, in the opening of his article – “Who is Barack Obama?”

Never mind that this question should have been asked by the NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and all of the other Obama cheerleaders since before his “historic election”.

The people (voters) have been asking this question of this shadowy individual who rose from nowhere, in record time since he was thrust onto the national stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

This unknown individual has guarded his past (except for his two self written autobiographies) to minimize any derogatory information that to most Americans find reprehensible. Information like his association with known radicals, socialists, communists, Marxists and anti-business individuals were downplayed by the very same news organizations with zeal.

We have been told that to ask these questions you had to be radical, right wing ideologically driven and down right racist. Now the “grey lady” herself is asking these questions.

In his NY Times article, Mr. Herbert not only asks the chief question about Obama’s identity but also points out the President’s “credibility problem” (a two-fer).

In regards to the President’s credibility problem he writes “Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.”

Is Mr. Herbert calling Obama a liar? Mr. Herbert can get away with these racist questions because he himself is a liberal and of course, black.

He goes on about credibility -- “In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering “a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits.”

Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people’s benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.

Well, that wasn’t necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people’s coverage as a result of “reform,” and some of those changes would be substantial.”

He ends his article as he started it, with – “Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

They want to know who their president really is.”

Carrying water!

Mr. Herbert and the Times were too busy deflecting those questions that would have given them and America the answers to who Obama is and playing the race card at every turn.  Instead of performing their job of investigative journalism, they turned to slander and ad hominam attacks against the questioners.
In an April 2008 Op-Ed, Herbert wrote the following in concern for the Rev. Wright Issue on his favorite candidate – “This whole story is about Senator Obama’s run for the White House and absolutely nothing else. Barack Obama went to Rev. Wright’s church as a young man and was blessed with the Christian bona fides that would be absolutely essential for a high-profile political career.

Faster than anyone could have imagined, the young Mr. Obama became Senator Obama and then the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Then came the videotaped sermons and the roof caved in on Rev. Wright’s reputation. Senator Obama had no choice but to distance himself and he did it as gently as he felt he could.”

Herbert has been a masterful water carrier when he explains that 20 years of radical fellowship with Wright is not the story here so, move along. It is about Rev. Wright’s reputation and Obama’s forced disassociation with the Rev.

In a September 2009 Op-Ed, Herbert pulls race card in defense of Obama with the following – “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president”

“For many white Americans, Barack Obama is nothing more than that black guy in the White House, and they want him out of there”

“These are bits and pieces of an increasingly unrestrained manifestation of racism directed toward Mr. Obama that is being fed by hate-mongers on talk radio and is widely tolerated, if not encouraged, by Republican Party leaders. It’s disgusting, and it’s dangerous. But it’s the same old filthy racism that has been there all along and that has been exploited by the G.O.P. since the 1960s.”

“Glenn Beck, one of the moronic maestros of right-wing radio and TV, assures us that President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

“But the fact that a black man is now in the White House has so unsettled much of white America that the lid is coming off the racism that had been simmering at dangerously high temperatures all along. Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with Media Matters, said, “If someone had told me in February that there would be mainstream allegations that Obama was a racist and a fascist and a communist and a Nazi, I wouldn’t have believed it.”

Mr. Herbert decries “racism” of whites in America that want Obama removed from the White House. But look at his own racists remarks on November 1, 2008 on election eve – “There is some evidence that lower-educated, less affluent white voters — a group that tends to favor Senator McCain — may be somewhat more reluctant than other groups to respond to pollsters”

The overwhelming evidence that Herbert invokes the race issue to diminish those on the right and those who openly and critically have asked the question that he now is asking with his latest article is too little too late. The question that the old grey lady is asking now has been clarified by Mr. Herbert long before the election that cements the fact he, as well as the NY Times (and their diminishing followers) have known all along who Obama is by this July 8, 2008 article – “His brilliant, nationally televised victory speech in Des Moines sent a shiver of hope through much of the electorate. “The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face,” said Senator Obama, “who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.”

One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zinging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

“What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.

“For one thing, he’s taking his base for granted, apparently believing that such stalwart supporters as blacks, progressives and pumped-up younger voters will be with him no matter what. A taste of the backlash this can produce erupted on the candidate’s own Web site.

Thousands of Obama supporters flooded the site with protests over his decision to support an electronic surveillance bill that gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrant less wiretapping program. The senator had previously promised to filibuster the bill if it contained the immunity clause.

There has been reluctance among blacks to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama’s move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.”

So, there you have it, they have known all along that he cannot be trusted with the Progressives plan for America let alone his own disastrous policies since taking office. If the NY Times and Mr. Herbert would have asked the hard questions instead of invoking race and smearing those who wanted to know “who is Obama” then maybe we would have known better than to elect him. Hillary Clinton, in hind sight, is looking more and more attractive as President – Whew, I cannot believe I just said that. Maybe I need to ask myself “who am I”?

Monday, January 25, 2010

From “Spin Zone” to “Twilight Zone”!

Democrat’s take on MA loss defies any logic or coherence

OK, let me see if I get this correct. According to Obama’s senior advisors as well as Democrats in General, Coakley lost her election to Brown in “Blue Massachusetts” because of George Bush anger! The majority of voters, according to them, elected a Republican as the answer to that anger?

Is this spin or an episode of the “twilight zone?

According to a NY Times article, Obama will address the nation with his first “State of the Union” address to say the following:

President Obama will propose in his State of the Union address a package of modest initiatives intended to help middle-class families, including tax credits for child care, caps on some student loan payments and a requirement that companies let workers save automatically for retirement, senior administration officials said Sunday.

On December 30, 2009, this is what Coakley stated as her campaign goals”:

“Democratic US Senate candidate Martha Coakley outlined a tax plan yesterday that she said would benefit the middle class and small businesses and not the wealthy, who she argues have been unfairly helped by Bush-era tax cuts.

Coakley said she wants to make permanent a $2,500 college tax credit, called the American Opportunity Tax Credit, for low-income and middle-class families. She also wants to increase the tax credit for child and dependent care, to help offset the costs of day care.

In addition, Coakley proposed making permanent the federal research and development tax credit for companies and research institutes, as well as increasing money for micro loans made by the Small Business Administration and enacting other tax credits for businesses that invest in hiring and training new employees.

“We must provide a targeted infusion of tax relief to the middle class and to small businesses to support them and continue to move us out of this difficult economy,’’ Coakley, the state’s attorney general, said in a statement.

On January 19, 2010, David Axelrod (eve of the MA loss of Coakley) said the following:

““We’re not on this ideological jag and we’re not going to follow the route that their party seems to be going. We want constructive ideas to improve the lives of people and improve the middle-class, and that’s what we’re going to pursue.”

Judging by Axelrod’s comments, expect the president to refer often to the middle-class in his State of the Union address next week.

Asked about the unexpected contest in Massachusetts, Axelrod spoke of “an awful lot of anxiety among middle-class Americans, and that’s not exactly a revelation to us; that’s the reason we are here. People felt they weren’t being heard. They felt that their concerns are not the concerns of people here in Washington.”

Middle Class “sandwich”

Obama will propose immediate child care tax credits as well as “in-home” elderly care tax credits to help his “middle class” burden.

This nice description of the “middle class sandwich” is a disguised “quid pro quo” payment of a massive cash infusion to the SEIU. SEIU union is the recipient of the “in home” care workers as well as “child care workers”.

SEIU is the fastest-growing union in North America. Focused on uniting workers in three sectors to improve their lives and the services they provide, SEIU is:

The largest healthcare union, with more than 1.1 million members in the field, including nurses, LPNs, doctors, lab technicians, nursing home workers, and home care workers

The largest property services union, with 225,000 members in the building cleaning and security industries, including janitors, security officers, superintendents, maintenance workers, window cleaners, and doormen and women.

The second largest public services union, with more than 1 million local and state government workers, public school employees, bus drivers, and child care providers

The SEIU trifecta:

SEIU was firmly on board with the Obamacare bill for one reason and one reason only – expansion of the SEIU “health care workers” union representation.

When Brown won and Democrats started to talk about abandonment of the plan, SEIU President Andy Stern brought the “baseball” bat out to threaten the white house with 2010 election help.

Obama decided to throw a bone back in Stern’s direction to declare the health care bill alive (albeit on life support) and that he would fight the good fight. In the meantime, he threw SEIU a “Child Care, In-Home Health care” bone with immediate tax dollars in their direction in the guise of a “middle class sandwich” argument. This argument was the exact platform of Coakley that did not resonate with “the Blue State” of Massachusetts. I will remind them again that the same “Democratic and Independent” voters that rejected that argument and sided with the Republican vision (of which the Republicans were outnumbered in registered voters 4 to 1).

This author will see if what Axelrod and Obama have been alluding to in the run up to the “State of the Union” comes to fruition. If so, it has become abundantly clear that they did not receive a “wake up call” from America and their “business as usual” (ram health care down our throats while enriching their thug friends) attitude of arrogance that we are stupid and do not see what is happening. It will be obvious they underestimate us.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Why Obama is hell bent on “Health Care reform!

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head and caused a great uproar of defensiveness from the Obama Administration as well as personal attacks by the MSM when she said that the health care bill had a “Death panel” in it.

When I sat down to analyze or understand what is motivating those on the left continue to blatently ignore the “will of the people” to the point of political suicide. I started with the election (or theft of) of Obama and his platform that molded his policy aspirations.

Set aside for the moment the “bail-outs” and the “nationalization” of the financial industries and automotive industries for a moment (because these are two areas where he has achieved a modicum of success in passing) and focus on the two biggest failures to date:

1. Healthcare overhaul
2. Cap & Trade/Man made global warming

Starting with the latter, Obama has not only failed to pass the Cap & Trade bill despite having a 60 seat, filibuster proof Senate but his attempt at salvaging the Global Warming treaty in Copenhagen.

That said I went back to Obama’s earliest “environmental” visions by looking at his cabinet picks and his Czars. If you remember, Obama chose Van Jones to be his “Green Jobs” czar and was ultimately removed (in the dead of night) because of two reasons.

1. He was an admitted Communist, and
2. He was a self admitted 9/11 truther

Ironically, it was his 9/11 beliefs that received more criticism than the fact of his communist beliefs. The disturbing thing is Van Jones is still working with the Obama Administration on environmental and health care issues through the Apollo Alliance, in secret.

The other Czar that received notoriety, yet remains in his job to date is the “Science Czar”, John Holdren.

Finally it was Obama’s pick of Lisa P. Jackson for the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency that received little attention at first but has now translated into her decision at the EPA to declare CO2 toxic when the Senate failed to pass the Cap & Trade bill essentially making the US liable for Cap without the benefit of trade. This occurred just prior to Obama’s failed attempt to secure the treaty at Copenhagen.

EPA’s Press Release:

“WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced climate change goes beyond observed increases in average surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.”

It is telling that the new EPA designation is wholly based on the UN reports of the IPCC which have been decimated by the subsequent “e-mail” scandal that showed the scientists who provided the IPCC their information “cooked the books” and even more recently the incorrect Glacier meltdown error that the UN was forced to admit:

“In revelations that embarrass the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the UN body that has built the scientific base for action on climate change - and its chairman R K Pachauri, it's emerged that its key conclusion that there was high probability of Himalayan glaciers melting away by the year 2035 was based on unsubstantiated, indeed "speculative," evidence.

IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, which has been the main reference point for climate-change science, cited a 2005 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report to say that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear entirely by 2035 - "perhaps sooner" - if current trends in global warming continued.

That WWF report itself was based on an interview of Syed Iqbal Hasnain, an Indian researcher honoured with Padma Shri last year, published in the New Scientist in 1999.

WWF today admitted that its 2005 report "contained erroneous information". "Although scientists remain deeply concerned about glacier retreat in that region, this particular prediction has subsequently proved to be incorrect," the WWF said in a statement.”

It is here that I start to get lengthy in connecting dots. To do so I must go back to the early 20th century in what Glen Beck calls the “progressive era” in America. Before I go back to the founding of this era, I want to share with you the modern day elitist view. Remember when Warren Buffet announced he was giving his billions and billions to charity, specifically the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? If not, here is what Buffet said in that announcement (taken from Hudson Institute essay titled: The Ungodly bright: Should They Lead Philanthropy into the Future?

“WHEN WARREN Buffett announced his multi-billion dollar bequest to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the summer of 2006, he explained his generous if unconventional act of charity by claiming that “if your goal is to return the money to society by attacking truly major problems that don’t have a commensurate funding base – what could you find that’s better than turning to a couple of people who are young, who are ungodly bright…”

American philanthropy’s romance with the “ungodly bright” has a long, if not always noble, pedigree. After all, the first large foundations – Carnegie, Rockefeller, Russell Sage – were established during, and fully reflected the predilections of, America’s progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. The progressives were persuaded that, just as disease was rapidly being conquered by modern science and medicine, so “social pathogens” – the ultimate source of our social ills – could be tracked down and eradicated once and for all, given new sciences of human behavior like sociology, psychology, and public administration. But this would require that the management of human affairs be taken out of the hands of the benighted many and put into the care of the enlightened few, trained and credentialed in the new social sciences. Not coincidentally, this was precisely the direction history itself wished to take. As their name suggest, progressives were convinced that history was the story of inexorable progress from the selfish individualism and parochial localism of the past to a new era of social-minded brotherhood. But only the ungodly bright avant garde had the historical and scientific insight to break with the parochial allegiances of the past, and persuade or compel the many to follow them into a more promising, socially conscious, collective future.”

I will show you two things, first I will show you that the modern day eugenics which was born by this “ungodly bright avant garde” in the early 20th century (Rockefeller) is alive and well today and second the environmental cabal’s belief in Population control as a means to promote eugenics in such ways as Abortion, sterilization and other ways.

This evil institution that was formerly called “the American Eugenics Society” (today eugenics has been renamed “bioethics) and the new institution is called “The Hastings Center.

The Eugenics Society worked hand in hand with their British counterparts (elites) in Nazi Germany preceding the holocaust. It is what gave Hitler his idea of “culling the imperfect human herd” to achieve the German Master Race through a Nazi program known as “Tiergarten 4” (T4 for short), the history in one moment.

The transformation of the American Eugenics Society into The Hastings Center:

After the war, with corpses still smoking in Europe, the eugenics/euthanasia movement laid low for a time, inventing new names for itself such as “social biology” and “the right to die.” The British royal family, whose palace physicians such as Lord Thomas Jeeves Horder had officially run the eugenics/euthanasia movement all through the Hitler era, now teamed with their Wall Street moneybags to retool the movement behind population reduction, especially for non-white peoples.

• The American Eugenics Society merged with, and moved its offices into the headquarters of the Rockefeller family’s new Population Council in 1953.
• A eugenics zealot in the Ernst Rudin tradition, Daniel Callahan, got a Population Council grant and continual Rockefeller family sponsorship in 1968-69 to found the Hastings Center, in Garrison, N.Y., to push euthanasia under the new title, “Bioethics.”
• Geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodore Dobzhansky was simultaneously a founding director of the Hastings Center and chairman of the American Eugenics Society. Hastings founder Callahan became a director of the Eugenics Society.
• The Hastings Center is now headquarters for the Obama reform agenda, still under the active leadership of emeritus president Callahan, the Hitlerian eugenist.

Guess who is a “Senior Fellow” at the Hastings Center, Dr. Ezekial Emanuel!

According to “The Hastings Center” website, regarding “End of Life”:

“Death may not have changed, but dying is quite different from what it used to be, thanks to medical technologies that have extended life and made dying frequently a lingering process rather than a sudden event. People with failing kidneys can survive on dialysis for 20 or more years. People with incurable cancer can live for months or years with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Victims of car accidents who would once have died of head trauma can now be kept alive by ventilators and feeding tubes. Meantime, life-saving therapies for what were once sudden killers, like heart attack, mean that increasing numbers of us end up with chronic complications or decline into dementia.

Given these trends, questions about the quality of life at its very end, and the care provided to the dying have assumed an unprecedented importance and complexity, engaging policy, law, ethics, and economics. What if a patient refuses treatment? What if a dying patient no longer has the capacity to make decisions? What if the family disagrees with his wishes? How useful are advance directives? If treatments can keep somebody alive for added months, weeks, or days, when and to whom should they be given? Who takes care of the caretakers?

With an aging baby boom population, and with end-of-life care consuming an estimated 10% to 12% of the annual health care budget, these and other questions continue to need probing, debating, and—ultimately—answering.”

Obama & Dr. Ezekial Emanual (Rahm Emanual’s brother)

“The U.S. National Military Tribunal identified as a prime motive of the euthanasia program, “to eliminate ‘useless eaters’ from the scene, in order to conserve food, hospital facilities, doctors and nurses for the more important use of the German armed forces.” That euthanasia program, and the rise to power of the Nazi regime that perpetrated it, had been sold to a population frantic from economic collapse and predisposed, from years of propaganda by the eugenics/euthanasia movement, to consider some lives unworthy to be lived.

German advocates of eugenics (a crackpot notion of hereditary superiority and inferiority), law professor Karl Binding and psychiatry professor Alfred Hoche, had written a sensational 1920 pamphlet, The Permission To Destroy Life Unworthy of Life, a prime theoretical basis for the Nazi genocide. Binding and Hoche argued that society should cast aside the “obsolete”

Hippocratic Oath, that binds doctors to do no harm to patients and commits them to consider only the patient’s welfare.”

On June 18, 2009, Dr. Emanual wrote an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that suggested that doctors throw away the Hippocratic Oath, when he said “Doctors “are trained to identify and praised for . . . enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them. . . . Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive Physicians. . . . This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically, the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”

Remember, in May 2009 Obama demanded that $2 Trillion be cut from insurers and health care providers.

“The $2 trillion health-care cuts, now demanded by Obama and the financiers, were previously promoted in a speech by Dr. Gerhard Wagner, head of the Nazi organization for physicians, at the Sept. 8-14, 1936 Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg: “The millions and billions that we have spent . . . for care of the genetically ill, is a squandering of our national resources that we National Socialists cannot justify when we consider the needs of the healthy population. Healthy working class families with numerous children today earn only enough for the necessities of life, which means that it is irresponsible that the state must provide the money for some genetically ill families who may have several family members in institutions costing thousands of marks annually. The previous year, Hitler had told this same Dr. Wagner, that the doctors, primed for murder through the eugenics/euthanasia movement, would have to wait for the crisis of the war to convince the public to give up their moral principles. -- the identical point made by

Ezekiel Emanuel in October 2008:

“The world economy is teetering ... With trillions of dollars evaporating in this crisis, millions of middle-class Americans face the prospect of losing their homes and jobs, and witnessing a dramatic contraction of their retirement savings. In response, the public will desperately want financial security.... Bailing out bankers and other gamblers [and the] huge increase in the federal debt that these bailouts will entail intensifies the pressure to rein in health-care costs....

The dean of health-care economists, Victor Fuchs of Stanford, has long maintained that we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest. It's beginning to look like we might just have all three....?

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, "The Financial Crisis and Health Care," the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 12, 2008

Never let a crisis go to waste – Rahm Emanuel

It is important to remember that Obama had nominated former Senator Tom Daschle to be his “Health Czar” who withdrew his nomination after we learned he did not pay $140,000 in back taxes. America dodged a bullet that day because what people do not realize is that Mr. Daschle shares Dr. Emanuel’s philosophy.

“In his (Daschle’s) 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis” Daschle calls for a rule, that all who register for Medicare must sign a document outlining the degree to which they consent to be killed in an “end of life” situation.

The other dark side of the Obamacare bill is the tax payer funded abortion provision.

If you think after reading everything above that Obama has surrounded himself with the individuals who share the “eugenics” philosophy by ignorance then just recall the exchange the President had with Jane Sturm:

“Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

Eugenics and the link to the Environment movement – Overpopulation

The radical environmental “Science Czar” John Holdren who has survived the onslaught of Conservative ire for his beliefs:

“Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion."

Rockefeller Foundation – Today

I have touched upon the past with the Rockefeller Foundation and their grant to establish the Hastings Center (formerly “The American Eugenics Society”) but wanted to share with you, the current Leadership.

The President of “The Rockefeller Foundation” since 2005 is Judith Rodin. In 199 she was the President of the University of Pennsylvania when a death was caused from “experimental human gene therapy” that touched off a national outrage and eventually a “Congressional Investigation”:

The patient/guinea pig:

Jesse Gelsinger - The key facts to date are these: On Sept. 17, 1999, Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old with a rare metabolic disease known as ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency ("OTC"), who was participating in an experimental gene therapy trial at the Institute for Human Gene Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania, died at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania four days after being injected with corrective genetic material for the disease.

The letter from Judith Rodin to Senator William Frist:

"The Honorable William Frist
U.S. Senate
416 Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3802

Dear Senator Frist:

I want to take this opportunity to provide you with some background on our activities in support of the current investigation of clinical trials at the Institute for Human Gene Therapy ("IHGT") at the University of Pennsylvania.

First and foremost, I want you to know how seriously the University is approaching this matter. The death of Jesse Gelsinger was a terrible tragedy, and we are determined to learn everything we can about it to understand precisely what happened and what might be done to improve clinical trials throughout the University and at all institutions affiliated with us. We intend for our research programs, particularly those involving human subjects, to meet the highest standards. Nothing less is acceptable.

We have several, extensive efforts underway to achieve this goal and to respond to the important concerns raised by federal regulators. We have launched two independent reviews, led by eminent scientists, and we have been and will continue to be strongly committed to cooperating fully with the FDA, NIH, Congress and any other appropriate body as they review these issues.

The key facts to date are these: On Sept. 17, 1999, Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old with a rare metabolic disease known as ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency ("OTC"), who was participating in an experimental gene therapy trial at the Institute for Human Gene Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania, died at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania four days after being injected with corrective genetic material for the disease. OTC is an inherited disorder that in its most common form causes death in affected newborn males because of their inability to properly process nitrogen in food proteins due to a genetic defect in the liver. The clinical trial was voluntarily halted pending review. All appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the trial, were notified promptly; we pledged to cooperate, fully and completely, with any agency reviews undertaken. Thereafter, the FDA began a review of the clinical trial. On Jan. 19, 2000, the FDA completed its on-site review and issued a Form 483 raising important questions about IHGT's monitoring and oversight of this and other clinical trials. Two days after issuing the Form 483, the FDA placed a hold on all clinical trials at IHGT. On Jan. 18, 2000, the Office for Protection from Research Risk ("OPRR") forwarded to us a citizen complaint with regard to the review of the OTC clinical trial by Penn's Institutional Review Board and commenced an investigation.

The University takes the FDA's action and OPRR's letter--and the questions raised about IHGT's monitoring and oversight of clinical trials--extremely seriously. A team of scientists and administrators is working around-the-clock to ensure that the IHGT provides a comprehensive, detailed and accelerated response to the FDA and the OPRR as soon as possible.

Additionally, I have initiated two separate reviews related to this matter--an independent review by outside experts and an internal review by Penn faculty--both of which will involve distinguished research scientists with a wealth of academic expertise and relevant experience.

The independent panel will be made up of senior academic leadership and renowned research scientists who are unaffiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. It will be chaired by William H. Danforth, M.D., Chancellor Emeritus and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of Washington University in St. Louis, and it will include Joseph B. Martin, M.D., Ph.D., Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Edward J. Benz, Jr., M.D., Sir William Osler Professor and Director of the Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Inder Verma, Ph.D., American Cancer Society Professor of Molecular Biology, The Salk Institute, La Jolla, Calif.; Rochelle Hirschhorn, M.D., Professor of Medicine and Cell Biology and Chief of the Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine; and Daniel Callahan, Ph.D., Director of International Programs, The Hastings Center, Garrison, N.Y. They will have a broad mandate to conduct a comprehensive review of every aspect of IHGT's procedures for oversight and monitoring of clinical trials.

This committee will report directly to me; its charge follows below:

1. To conduct a thorough, independent review in order to carefully evaluate and assess IHGT's oversight and monitoring of clinical trial programs, with particular emphasis on the FDA's findings about the OTC Therapy Trial and IHGT's response to those findings.

2. To recommend any additional actions necessary to ensure the highest standards are set and met in the conduct, oversight and monitoring of future IHGT clinical trials, including a framework for University monitoring of compliance with these recommendations.

3. To report findings of review to the President of University of Pennsylvania and recommend issues to be referred to the University's faculty committee charged with reviewing human subject research.

Additionally, I have formed a committee of Penn faculty, chaired by Provost Robert L. Barchi, himself a distinguished scientist and scholar, and comprised of research scientists with a wealth of talent and relevant experience, who will conduct a proactive review of all aspects of research involving human subjects anywhere at Penn. They will examine everything we do, from the mechanics of the approval process, to oversight and the functions of our Institutional Review Board, to ultimate accountability for this research.

Again, we deeply regret Jesse Gelsinger's death, and we want to learn everything we can about how and why he died. We also want to consider everything and anything we can do to improve our oversight and monitoring procedures for essential clinical research. As I said, nothing less than the highest possible standards are acceptable. And, Penn is deeply committed to cooperating fully with the appropriate regulatory agencies and public officials examining these complex issues.

We welcome any suggestions you may have on how we are approaching this matter, and, of course, we will keep you informed of all significant developments.


Judith Rodin"

This death did not hinder her rise to another prominent position within the Rockefeller Foundation some 5 years later. Human experimentation was at the core of the Nazi Eugenics program as well as the famed Nazi “Dr. Mengele”.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Ft. Hood report – Nothing here, move along!

The DOD is dangerously inept and the anticipated report on the Ft. Hood terror incident proves it. First, let me begin by stating that the report (86 pages in all) describes Hasan as “the alleged perpetrator”. In addition when I did a “word search” on the document the following did not appear anywhere in the report:



Al Qaida


Alawi (al-Qaida leader in Yemen that Hasan e-mailed numerous times)

How can we fight, or even provide the most basic protection against radical islamic terror when those in charge of that defense are so hog-tied by political correctness to the point of suicide? The same DOD that is charged with the front line fight endorses islamic muslim religious activities within their ranks, yet investigate and discipline rank and file service members who follow the Christian faith! They allow islamic radical infiltration to teach sensitivity to military members while firing qualified analysts that understand who we are fighting. The Ft. Hood terror incident was the first sucessful terror plot perpetrated on our soil since 9/11 and by luck foiled another with the Christmas Day plot. If we cannot expect honest assessment from the DOD, what hope do we have with the upcoming assessment of the DOJ regarding the Christmas day plot?

In the weeks since the Christmas day attempt we have not had a single word about how the State Department, under Clinton allowed this guy to obtain a visa at all. It all began and ends with the visa.

As Michelle Malkin puts it – “No visa, no plane ticket. No ticket, no passage to airline jihad.

Even absent the intelligence we had on this al-Qaida-trained operative before his fateful trip, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was required to know better than to issue a coveted entrance pass to a globe-trotting, Nigerian-born nomad. Under federal law (section 214(b) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act to be precise), State Department consular officials must determine that foreigners applying for temporary visas (students, tourists and business people) will in fact return to their home countries as required and will not abuse their visa privileges.

This means making sure that the temporary visa applicant has strong ties to his native land. It’s supposed to be a tough burden to overcome. Yet, Abdulmutallab showed no such propensities at the time he applied for his temporary visa at the U.S. Embassy in London in June 2008. He was a 20-something student who had flitted from Nigeria to Yemen to Togo to England without a family or job. He was, in other words, a textbook itinerant waving more red flags than a bullfighter.”

The Report

According to Powerline

“The report attributes the fact that the military did not identify the threat posed by the Nidal Hasan -- it calls him "the alleged perpetrator" -- to bureaucratic shortcomings in the acquisition and sharing of information.

As to accumulating information, the report finds that "current definition for prohibited activities [by members of the armed forces] is incomplete and does not provide adequate guidance for commanders and supervisors to act on potential threats to security."

In addition, "there is no well-integrated means to gather, evaluate, and disseminate the side range of behavioral indicators which could help our commanders better anticipate and internal threat."

It is embarrassing for me to even type these words. As Peters notes, the signs that Hasan was a radical Islamist who might well be a danger were abundantly clear, nor were they not missed by his associates.

And the fact that his associates did not share this information was not due to poor bureaucratic "architecture" or turf protection. The information was not shared because, given Hasan's status as "the Army's sole Palestinian-American psychiatrist," his "superiors feared -- correctly -- that any attempt to call attention to his radicalism or to prevent his promotion would backfire on them, destroying their careers, not his."

In the second paragraph, the author states the report findings:

"current definition for prohibited activities [by members of the armed forces] is incomplete and does not provide adequate guidance for commanders and supervisors to act on potential threats to security."

While this may be true for a service member who is Muslim, it is quite clear that service members that align themselves with Christian activities are treated harshly by the DOD where full investigations are held. For instance, in August 2007, USA Today:

“The Army and Air Force are considering disciplinary action against seven officers -- including four generals -- who violated ethics rules by assisting a Christian group in the production of a fundraising video.

The report recommended that senior military leaders consider "appropriate corrective action" against the officers.

Lt. Col. Linda Haseloff, an Air Force spokeswoman, said Monday the service is still studying the report "and no additional information can be provided at this time."

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the report is being reviewed by legal staff and no decisions would be made until they are done.

According to the group's Web site, Christian Embassy is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement."

Christian Embassy holds prayer meetings each Wednesday morning at the Pentagon.

The inspector general's report reveals a "long and deep collusion with a fundamentalist, religious missionary organization," Michael Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said in a statement.

Weinstein wants Congress to hold oversight hearings over the Defense Department's failure to separate "church and state.

Among the officers cited in the report are Army Brig. Gens. Vincent Brooks, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and Robert Caslen, commandant of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy.

Air Force Maj. Gens. Peter Sutton and John Catton also appeared in the video.

Here we have the Deputy Commanding General (of Ft. Hood, Texas base no less) under DOD investigation for ties to an organization described as a “fundamentalist, religious missionary organization” yet it has an office in the Pentagon.

In a comparable item, the Pentatgon, DOD and the White House have endorsed the Muslim faith through Iftar functions, Ramadan and various other official functions ties to that faith.

In 2001 (just two weeks after 9/11) the Deputy Secretary of Defense was the guest speaker at the DOD Iftar dinner:

The Deputy SECDEF out ranks any General yet it was the Christian faith that was investigated vigorously for service member participation.

What should the report have said? Here, I defer to Bennett:

An Islamic terrorist was raised in the United States and given a pass throughout his professional career in the United States military. His allegiance was not to his country but to his radical religion. He told his colleagues of this again and again. He didn't set off signals, he set off sirens. And nothing was done. The military leadership didn't take his words seriously, even as we were at war with people saying the exact same things he was saying. And the culture of the Army that coddled him was too well-represented by the Army chief of staff who, after the rampage, said "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

It was this thinking that led to us keeping Major Hasan in the Army and that diminished force protection. It was this culture that allowed a terrorist into the Army. It was this political correctness that led to the deaths of 14 innocents. And if you want to prevent another tragedy like this, you must end this infection of the mindset.

So the Pentagon has targeted the Christian faith while giving Islam a pass. The Pentagon and the US Government bends over backward to endorse the religion of death while persecuting those who are Christians. What is wrong with this picture?

Who’s on First?

Abbot and Costello could do better on National Security!

August 2009 – Press Briefing to Announce “High Value Detainee Interrogation Unit”

"Washington — In an effort to gain more intelligence through “scientifically proven means,” the Obama administration has created a “high-value interrogation group” with responsibility for interrogating key detainees who are believed to have useful information on violent extremist groups, a White House spokesman says.

“White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters August 24 that the new group, which President Obama created after receiving the consensus recommendation of an interagency task force, will be housed at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

“It will bring together all the different elements of the intelligence community to get the best intelligence possible based on scientifically proven methods and consistent with the Army Field Manual,” Burton said in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, where the president is vacationing.

“This is a way that the intelligence community can best operate, especially in these high-value instances,” he said.”

Deputy press secretary Burton said President Obama signed an executive order to establish an interagency interrogation task force to “find new methods by which we can get more intelligence by scientifically proven means.”

The high-value interrogation group will house people from different elements of the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). “It houses all these different elements under one group where they can best perform their duties,” Burton said.

The president “has full confidence in this plan, and he's going to continue to support it going forward,” he said.

I am positive that Burton actually said that the “new group has been created” vs. in the process of creation. It is hard to ascertain on August 24 because the article at the above link has conflicting information such as in the paragraph above where it states “the interrogation group will house” (which the word “will” implies something in the future) and ends the next sentence with “It houses all these different elements” (which the word “it” implies something currently exists).

Ok, let’s give Obama a break here and say that Burton misspoke and that the new group is currently being formed and will be operational sometime in the future, which appears to be the case as the Dept. of Justice announcement of the program on their site.

On November 5th, less than two months after Obama announced the creation of the HIG the worst terror attack on US soil since 9/11 occurred. One would think that the operational capability would be rushed into place given this fact. Not to be.

On December 24, another attack was foiled when the underwear bomber lit his genitalia on fire instead of exploding the bomb that would have killed 300 innocents.

Surely, the group would be in place to interrogate Mutallab right? Wrong.

In fact, Dennis Blair in Congressional testimony had this to say:

“Dennis Blair testified before Congress that Abdulmutallab should have been questioned by the HIG. He also stated that he was not consulted about this matter and that other important intelligence officials were not consulted either.

The notion that the FBI would interrogate a high value detainee like Abdulmutallab, rather than having the interrogation handled by a special group set up expressly for that purpose, is shocking -- so shocking that Blair slapped his head when he tesitifed about the HIG's lack of involvement. What is the purpose of a "High Value Detainee Interrogation Group" if not to question, or at least play a role in the handling, of a guy sent into the country by an emerging branch of al Qaeda with explosives in his underwear?

Blair's testimony seemed too bad to be true, and that turned out to be the case. But not because the HIG did, in fact, interrogate Abdulmutallab; rather, because the HIG does not actually exist as an operational entity.

Blair made this clear in what must rank as the among the most embarrassing "clarificatons" of congressional testimony ever. Blair was forced to amend his testimony to say that the FBI questioned Abdulmutallab using its "expertise in interrogation that will be available in the HIG once it is fully operational" (emphasis added). – Powerline

According to the testimony by Blair to Congress on the matter:

The nation's intelligence chief said the man accused of trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation team instead of being handled as an ordinary criminal suspect.

Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Wednesday that officials botched the handling of terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is accused of working with a Yemen-based offshoot of al Qaeda to try to bring down the Detroit-bound jet carrying 290 passengers and crew.

A new panel charged with designating so-called high-value terrorism suspects for special interrogations should have been used in the case and the suspect should have been questioned by an elite group of interrogators, said Mr. Blair, who used the expression "duh" to emphasize his point.

Then, in a turnabout later in the day when testimony resumed Blair made the following “clarification” to his earlier testimony:

Later in the day, Mr. Blair issued a statement saying his comments were "misconstrued." "The FBI interrogated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab when they took him into custody," his statement said. "They received important intelligence at that time, drawing on the FBI's expertise in interrogation that will be available in the HIG once it is fully operational," he said, referring to the High-Value Interrogation Group.

There it is – the HIG is still not operational!

So, does anyone else feel safer now that Obama has put an end to “enhanced interrogations” to show how humane and just America is?

The Obama “Pivot”!

Back to health care!

After a collective sigh of relief (even from Democrats) Political pundits, cable news and regular Americans have all been talking about the impending pivot to address jobs. The talk has been about how Clinton, after the “Hillarycare” defeat, admitted the will of the people and pivoted to economic issues. Everyone say the deft move to the center that Clinton did and fully expect Obama to mimic the move.

The buzz about the “Obama impending pivot” is expected to come in the President’s first “State of the Union”, until today.

According to Newsmax – “President Barack Obama and top congressional Democrats insist they will push ahead with efforts to overhaul healthcare, though they aren't explaining how they will proceed in that uphill fight.”

"There are things that have to get done. This is our best chance to do it. We can't keep on putting this off," Obama said Friday at a town hall meeting in Elyria, Ohio, warning listeners that spiraling medical costs threaten to bankrupt them and the country unless Congress acts.

"I am not going to walk away just because it's hard," the president said.”

"I understand that, why after the Massachusetts election people in Washington were all in a tizzy, trying to figure out what this means for health reform, Republicans and Democrats: What does it mean for Obama? Is he weakened? Is he, oh, how's he going to survive this?" Obama said. "But I want you to understand, this is not about me. This is about you."

Lawmakers ended the week with no clear path, though aides promised to work through the weekend to look for a compromise, possibly one that could allow the Senate to act with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote supermajority Democrats now lack.”

Dick Morris who has been a strong critic of the legislation has put together a list of your leaders who voted for the bill and are vulnerable to constituent pressure ala Massachusetts:

“Here is a list of twenty-three Democrats who voted for Obamacare and who are vulnerable in 2010. Its time to turn up the heat on them”:

• Harry Mitchell of Arizona
• Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona
• Alan Grayson of Florida
• Mark Schauer of Michigan
• Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire
• Mike Arcuri of New York
• Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio
• Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania
• Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania
• Tom Perriello of Virginia
• Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona
• Baron Hill of Indiana
• Dina Titus of Nevada
• John Hall of New York
• Stephen Driehaus of Ohio
• Paul Kanjorsky of Pennsylvania
• Dan Maffei of New York
• Allan Mollohan of West Virginia
• Nick Rahall of West Virginia
• Steve Kagen of Wisconsin
• Marion Berry of Arkansas
• John Spratt of Georgia
• Zack Space of Ohio

These are legislators that need to “rehear” the anger that propelled Scott Brown into Ted Kennedy’s seat and the anger that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are continuing to ignore.

When Obama stated “"But I want you to understand, this is not about me. This is about you." He obviously did not understand the anger was about him but also about us getting our message across in a way, the only way that they understand – through loss of power.

The mask is off!

Where can they get more money?

The “crisis” that the Democrats and Obama Administration have been pitching regarding health care didn’t end up panning out. For all the talk of immediate need for reform in the Health care field and the full court press to “fix” it quickly then why would the effects (except immediate taxation) of the bill not take place for 4 years?

The answer, money! The Democrats, who agenda is sorely starved of any cash in our coffers, needed money, now! They invented a crisis, which was no crisis according to the American public.

They remembered the Democrats first crisis - banks and the money it costs us to bail them out.

Now, the day after the Democrats and this Administration were made painfully aware, health care taxes would not be flooding into their greedy little hands anytime soon. This cash cow has died before producing any milk for them to take and finance further socialist programs. What to do?

Plan B

The demonization of the Insurance Companies almost worked flawlessly in their health care ponzi scheme so why not switch gears to the place where a lot of new money has arrived – banks (repayment of bailout money). They intent to rob the banks of the money that they failed to get through taxation of the little people.

The money that our government loaned to the banks didn’t actually exist, it was created out of whole cloth from a journal entry made on the books, but, the money that was repaid is real.

With the Massachusetts election of Scott brown the Democrats and the White House are in full panic mode because the ability to “filibuster” is now real and stands directly in the way of their plans to reap as much money as possible to spend on their socialist agenda.

The first crack in the plan is that now, Ben Bernanke’s reconfirmation is in serious doubt. His support of everything that Obama has tried to accomplish through this generational theft has been instrumental. In addition, there has been overwhelming bi-partisan support in the House to audit this “non-governmental”, powerful institution we call the Federal Reserve. Representative Ron Paul has made this his political life’s goal to open those books which the House has never been permitted to do so. In addition, there seems to be roughly $13 trillion dollars missing which is adding to the urgency to look into their books. This crisis of missing money is more urgent than anything that the Democrats have been touting for health care urgency and has more support than that bill ever had, yet it is being blocked from seeing the light of day in spite of the massive bi-partisan co-sponsorship from both parties.

When it appeared that Obama was not getting his 4 years of tax infusion for health care, the day after the brown election, Obama switched gears to tax the banks for billions and billions of dollars. The result was a 400+ drop in the stock exchange in two days by the mere mention of his plan.

Make no mistake about it this recent development is to grab cash that they expected from health care taxes from bank vaults.

If you will recall, most banks did not want the TARP money and the Obama administration held a gun to their head and forced it upon them. Then when the “strings attached” rules became apparent, the banks went to repay these forced loans quickly and what did the Obama administration do, refused to allow them to repay the loans quickly. Now that the loans are repaid and the banks are out from under the governments yoke, Obama wants to tax them back into submission.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Can you hear me? Can you hear me now?

Before the political seismic shift occurred (January 20) in the birthplace of the original tea party, the headlines from the Washington Post (January 17) screamed “Congress makes job creation top 2010 priority”!

The article starts with the knowledge that the President as well as the House and Senate Democrats understand the overwhelming demand from constituents are jobs:

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Members of the U.S. Congress begin 2010 scrambling to reduce the double-digit U.S. jobless rate, knowing their own jobs will be at stake in the November election if they fail to deliver.

With about one in 10 Americans out of work, the highest percentage in 25 years, President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats -- who control the Senate and House of Representatives -- are making job creation their top priority.”

Top Priority!

Top Priority?

According to the same article, last month a $155 billion “job stimulus” bill was passed. Job stimulus? The aim of this bill was described as such - “Last month, the House passed a $155 billion bill that aims to stimulate the job market through infrastructure projects and helping states pay the salaries of public employees.

Infrastructure and paying salaries of “union” public employees! How can paying salaries of union members create jobs (oh, I forgot that Obama promised to create OR save jobs and the jobs he intends to save are union ones).

In this same article, the author goes on to say the following:

“Among Democrats' most immediate concerns is melding a Senate healthcare bill with one passed by the House to give Obama a final bill to sign into law so Democrats can put their full focus on generating employment after the deep economic slump.”

If the “top priority” is jobs, then why is the “most immediate” concern before putting their full focus jobs melding health care? The answer is that jobs is not their top priority it is to get the unpopular health care bill rammed down our throats first.

The New Mandate

Now that the election in Massachusetts has replaced the Obama mandate with the constituents mandate, the Democrats say they heard it, understand it but it is still business as usual.

The Americans know what is wrong in this country, yet Obama and the Democrats ignore them.

Even the Germans know what is wrong as demonstrated in the recent article Spiegel Online –

“US President Barack Obama suffered a painful defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. With mid-term elections looming, it means that Obama will have to fundamentally re-think his political course. German commentators say it is the end of hope.

More than that, though, the vote shows just how quickly the political pendulum has swung back to the right following Obama's election. The seat Brown won had been in Democratic hands for all but six years since 1926. Now, its new occupant is a man who not only opposes the health care bill, but also favors water boarding as a method of interrogation for terrorism suspects and rejects carbon cap-and-trade as a means of limiting carbon emissions.

Here is what the German tabloids are saying:

Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes on Thursday:

"Obama made a serious misjudgement. Right at the beginning of his first year in office, he saved the banks, rescued the automobile industry from collapse and passed a huge economic stimulus package. He had hoped that these enormous deeds would give him the space to address those issues which are dearest to him: health care reform, climate change and investment in education."

"Those issues, however, are clearly not priorities for people in the US at the moment. Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found. His reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country's future."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"For Obama, the election in Massachusetts means that he will have to re-evaluate his political style. He could now focus his concentration on his political base and push through his policy agenda. After all, he still has a majority in Congress -- he could back away from his strategy of bipartisanship ... which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating."

"More likely, however, is that Obama will interpret the Massachusetts loss as a signal that he should move further toward the middle and make more concessions to the conservatives -- even if this alienates his base even further, a base which had high expectations from the 'yes we can' candidate."

"For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all."

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

"In addition to health care reform, Obama's reputation has primarily been harmed by the high unemployment rate and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. It will become even more difficult in the future for the president to push projects through successfully. Not just because Republicans now have a means of preventing it, but also because the Democratic camp is deeply divided. Some would like to see the party shift toward the center -- wherever that may be -- whereas others want the party to position itself to the left. Such a battle is hardly a good sign for the mid-term elections in November. Massachusetts could prove to be an omen."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Of course the president rejects the interpretation that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on his first year in the White House. But he cannot ignore the fact that his health care reform package is not popular, the situation of the country's finances is seen as threatening and many voters blame the high unemployment rate on the party in power -- on the Democrats, led by Obama. The result is a second year in office full of very different challenges than the first. To save what there is to be saved, Obama will have to be prepared to fashion a bipartisan compromise on health care -- a compromise with a Republican Party which has tasted blood and can now dream once again about a return to power."

Pelosi “Who cares what happens in Massachusetts”!

Before MA election:

“House speaker Nancy Pelosi promises reporters that no matter who wins the open Senate seat in Massachusetts, health care reform will still pass.” – Newsmax

Day after MA election:

"Heeding the particular concerns of the voters of Mass. last night -- We heard, we will heed, we will move forward with their considerations in mind," she said. "But we will move forward for health care."


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in no uncertain terms today that the Senate health care bill does not have the support to pass in the House of Representatives.

"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters today.

"Unease would be a gentle word in terms of my colleagues' attitude toward certain provisions of the Senate bill," she said. "There are certain things members just cannot support."

Pelosi did not rule out, however, the possibility of passing the Senate bill at some point in the House.

"Everything is on the table," she said. She emphasized again, however, that the chances of passing the Senate bill are slim.”

Finally, today there were two news items that blared out to American’s while Nanci Pelosi and her socialist minions concentrate all of their time and effort on anything but job creation:

Unemployment numbers jump up “unexpectedly” and Congress to attempt to raise debt ceiling by $1.9 billion dollars.

All along the agenda of the socialists have been to tear down the “free market” system (which they are accomplishing at breakneck speed as shown by those two news items today) but further proof of the socialist agenda to destroy America by cramming this health care bill down our throats became much clearer today when the SEIU issued a press statement:

Andy Stern (most frequent guest at the WH) -

“The reason Ted Kennedy’s seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington’s inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure,” Stern said.

“During the past year, Republicans refused to do anything but stand in the way of change and Democratic Senators took too long to do too little. And tonight, the Senate bears the consequences for its failure to act decisively but the American people are the ones left paying the price…

“The Senate may have squandered the trust the American people gave to Washington in 2008. But now, every member of Congress and the Administration must act with a renewed sense of purpose to show working families whose side they are on and deliver meaningful change to every American. This is not the time for timidity. It starts by passing health insurance reform and giving Pat [DeJong] and millions of people like her the security and peace of mind they deserve.”

The final word on the legacy of Obama’s first year in office is that for the first time in reporting history, we are no long “a free economy” - Freedom took a hit in 2009. One year into the Obama presidency and America is no longer classified as having a “free” economy, according to the 16th annual Index of Economic Freedom, a joint report by the The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. The land of the free and the home of the brave is now only “mostly free” for the first time in the report’s history.