Notice: This website may or may not use or set cookies used by Google Ad-sense or other third party companies. If you do not wish to have cookies downloaded to your computer, please disable cookie use in your browser. Thank You.


Tuesday, May 31, 2011

You Worry Me!

Received via e-mail this letter entitled "You Worry Me!", an open letter from an American Airlines Pilot, hits the nail right on the head.

The (local) paper stated that some Muslim doctor is saying we are profiling him because he has been checked three times while getting on an airplane. Well Doctor, if wounded American Vets who almost gave their lives for this Country can be checked out three time, then you certainly can be especially given the fact that we are at War with Radical, extreme fundamentalist Islamists. Have you spoken out against these murderers?

The following is a letter from a pilot. This well spoken man, who is a pilot with American Airlines, says what is in his heart, beautifully....


By Captain John Maniscalco, American Airlines Pilot

I've been trying to say this since 911, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.

I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On September 11, ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings, killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.

The Palestinians celebrated, the Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage, hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.

How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim Americans and the Arab/Muslim terrorists in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these same good neighbors and children?

The events of September 11 changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.

I want to know, I demand to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America ... Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your Jihads? Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.

Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America . Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent, because I worry about who you regard as innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks, because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy; I am interested only in action. What will you do for America - our great country - at this time of crisis, at this time of war?

I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting 'Allah Bless America '. I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.

The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize right now in Muslim communities. You know them.

You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals.

The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing 'leaders' like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.

If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good, pure, and true, when your 'leaders' are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance? It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if huge numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammad incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.

We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us -our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.

I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance, and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then, "YOU WORRY ME!"

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Exactly My Thought!

Has someone ever said something to you where you inadvertently blurt out "Exactly!", because you had been thinking the same thing, or pondered a point along the same thought train? Well, this story sums up what I have been thinking for years, driving to work only to get about run off the road. Read the story,'ll understand.

The light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.

The tailgating woman was furious and honked her horn, screaming in frustration, as she missed her chance to get through the intersection, dropping her cell phone and makeup.

As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, finger-printed, photographed, and placed in a holding cell.

After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects.

He said, ''I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker, the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'Follow Me to Sunday-School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk, so naturally... .......I assumed you had stolen the car.''

Friday, May 27, 2011

Netanyahu's rebuttal to Obama

Since last week, when President Obama so infamously through Israel under the bus, political pundits and foreign policy wanks have been analyzing not only Obama idiotic speech but Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu's response.

In case you missed it, here are some excerpts from Benjamin Netanyahu, primarily on his rejection of the Obama's call for return to 1967 border where Israel would be 9 miles wide and place it's security in great jeopardy:

“Israel cannot go back to 1967 lines,” Netanyahu said. “We can’t go back to the indefensible lines.”

Netanyahu said " order to have real peace based on undeniable facts, the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel’s right to exist and that negotiating with Hamas would be to negotiate with the Palestinian equivalent of Al Qaeda. Hamas is a terrorist organization and has fired thousands of rockets into Israel with a goal of killing innocent men, women and children."

“Israel cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government that's backed by Hamas,” Netanyahu said. “Hamas has just attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States for ridding the world of bin Laden. “

Netanyahu gave Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas a choice: Stand with Hamas or make amends and peace with Israel. He also called for Abbas to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem in the context of a Palestinian state, not within the borders of Israel.

Netanyahu went on: “The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refuge problems: Palestinian refugee problem and a Jewish refugee, roughly the same number who were expelled from Arab lands. Now tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refuges but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Now, 62 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel, ‘Accept the grandchildren and the great grandchildren of these refugees,’ thereby wiping out Israel’s future as a Jewish state. It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly, it’s not going to happen,” Netanyahu said. “It’s not going to be resolved within the Jewish state.”

Netanyahu to Obama: “We share your hope and your vision for democracy in the Middle East,” Netanyahu said. “Israel wants peace, I want peace. What we all want is a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure.”

“We don’t have a lot of margin for error,” Netanyahu said. “History will not give the Jewish people another chance.” Indeed with about every major Muslim country stating that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. If one neighbor said that to another in Texas, there be a killin'.

Netanyahu's final (public) words to Obama: “You are a leader of a great people, the American people, and I’m the leader of a much smaller people. It’s a great people too. We’ve been around for almost 4,000 years. We’ve experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. The Jews have gone through expulsions and massacres and the murder of millions, but I can say that even at the nadir of the Valley of Death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of reestablishing a sovereign state and an ancient homeland of Israel. Now it falls on my shoulders, as the Prime Minister of Israel, at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East, to work with you, to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel’s security and will not jeopardize it’s survival. I take this responsibility with pride, but with great humility.”

Why can't the U.S. find a Statesman like Natanyahu? Why can't the U.S. stand with good as oposed to pacating Evil?

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

You Cut! - May 22, 2011 Version

Here we are again Boys and Girls,...go to You Cut and add your voice with your choice on what ridiculous Government spending we can do without. I voted to terminate U.S. Contributions to the U.N. Population Fund. The United Nations is one of the most corrupt organizations in the World and serves as a conduit for wasting American taxpayers money.

Terminate the Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation
Saves $60 million
Under this program, American Ambassadors can request funding for grants to preserve the cultural heritage of their host countries, such as restoration of historic buildings, documentation of music or vanishing craft techniques or languages, and conservation of museum collections. The program provided $6 million in grants during 2010, including $575,000 to preserve an 18th Century Mongolian monastery, $30,466 to document traditional Pygmy music in the Congo, $47,000 to preserve carpet weaving traditions in Kazakhstan, and $39,000 to restore 19th Century furniture at the Anton Chekhov House Museum in Ukraine. Termination of the program would save approximately $60 million over the next ten years.

Terminate U.S. Contributions to the Asian Development Fund
Saves $356 million
The Asian Development Fund provides concessional “soft loan” funds at the Asian Development Bank, an international multilateral financial institution which provides loans to governments in the Asian-Pacific region. The Fund supports lending to countries in the region that are least credit-worthy due to low per-capita incomes, limited debt-repayment capacity, and limited access to financial markets. Loans are used to promote economic growth and fund anti-poverty efforts in the borrowing countries. Pakistan borrows about $1.5 billion annually from the fund for projects such as development of its transportation systems and providing urban services. The U.S. Government made a four-year commitment to the Fund of $461 million, of which only one installment of $105 million has been paid so far. Terminating further U.S. contributions to the Fund will save $356 million over 10 years.

Terminate U.S. Contributions to the United Nations Population Fund
Saves $400 million
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan withheld all U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) after determining that UNFPA participated in the support and co-management of China’s population control program. Under the Bush administration, the U.S. withheld funds for the UNFPA from America’s annual contributions to the United Nations due to UNFPA’s complicity in China’s one-child policy enforced through coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization, but the Obama administration and the 111th Congress resumed contributions to UNFPA. HR 1 sought to terminate UNFPA funding, which stood at $55 million in FY 2010. UNFPA funding was cut by $15 million, to $40 million in the final agreement over FY 2011 spending. The President’s 2012 Budget requests $47 million for the program.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Who hates Israel More - Obama or the Arabs?

Unbelievable!! Obama says that U.S. policy is now for Israel to go back to their pre-1967 war boundaries in order to pacify the Palestinians. This is be tantamount to suicide for Israel. My God, I hope they tell Obama where to get off. These are the same Palestinians who cheered when the planes hit the twin towers on 9-11; the same Arabs who lob rockets into Israel almost every day and publicly state that Israel has no right to exist.

We need to play hardball with the Arab world. They will respect nothing less. Instead of putting up with their anti-U.S. bias in the United Nations, lets tell all Arab nations, indeed the World, to pack it up and leave if they are not going to respect and back up American decisions at the U.N.

We could be "nice" about it. "Sorry Tunisia (for example) but the U.S. has decided not to give you X number of hundreds of million of dollars, since it is not in our interests to do so, just like it was not in your interests to back the U.S. on the last U.N. vote."

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States, percentage of which votes against U.S. interests:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States

And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States

Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States

Receives $143,699,000 annually.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Who Killed Osama?

Received earlier today from a Vietnam Vet who was passed along the message from another Vet.

Let's be clear "Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to PAY, did.

In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court martial 3 Navy Seals from Seal Team Six, when a terrorist suspect they captured, complained they had punched him during the take down and bloodied his nose. His administration further commented how brutal they were. The left were calling these SEALS Nazi's and Baby Killers. Now all of a sudden the very brave men they vilified, are now heros when they make his administration look good in the eyes of the public.

Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found the SOB and our sailors took him out. Essentially, Obama only gave an answer. Yes or No, to him being taken out (and this is in doubt with the revealing that Panetta gave the order for the Osama mission because of a waffling Obama.) This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!!

Ed Schriber
Col. USMC (Ret.)
"Semper Fi"

Speaking of the CIA, Obama gave a speech there, right before the wall of heroes where fallen CIA operatives are noted with a simple star, name. However i's still the same CIA that Obama ordered Eric Holder to investigate for torture. It that hypocrotical or what?!?

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Congressman Walsh's Response to Obama's El Paso Immigration Speech

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) has made a video to go with his letter to President Obama, expressing his concern over the President's comments on immigration in El Paso, TX.

In a press release Rep. Walsh says, "For years President Obama has said he is serious about dealing with America's immigration issues, however, yesterday he reinforced the idea that he's not taking the issue seriously by suggesting that the only way to make Republicans happy on the subject is to build 'a moat'."
The letter goes on to urge the president to get serious about the issue of illegal immigration, "If it takes moats and alligators to secure our borders to get you to be serious -- I'm game."

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Obama and his Immigration Agenda

Obama's Hypocritical Rhetoric on Immigration Reform - Townhall Columnist, Michael Barone's take on Obama's recent speech in El Paso, Texas.

Barack Obama's immigration speech in El Paso May 10 was an exercise in electioneering and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy because while Obama complained about "politicians" blocking comprehensive immigration bills, he was one of them himself.

In 2007, when such a bill was backed by a lame duck Republican president and had bipartisan backing from Senate heavyweights Edward Kennedy and Jon Kyl, Sen. Obama voted for union-backed amendments that Kennedy and Kyl opposed as bill-killers.

In 2009 and 2010, President Obama acquiesced in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to pass cap-and-trade and bypass immigration and in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision not to bring an immigration bill to the floor.

Both times the votes were probably there to pass a bill. Obama did not lift a finger to help.

But that did not stop the president who is constantly calling for civility to heap scorn on those who seek stronger enforcement. "They'll want a higher fence. Maybe they'll need a moat," he said to laughter from the largely Latino audience. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat. They'll never be satisfied."

Cowboy's comment: Unbelievable! You want to satifsy us?? ENFORCE THE LAW!!

Was that (Obama's comments) on the teleprompter, or was it ad-libbed? In either case, Obama was showing his contempt for those who bitterly cling to the idea that the law should be enforced.

Cowboy's comment: Obama's arrogance showing true again.

That's no way to assemble the bipartisan coalition necessary to pass an immigration bill.

It's obvious that nothing like the legalization (opponents say "amnesty") provisions considered in 2007 can pass in this Congress. They can never pass the Republican House, where Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is a longstanding opponent and Speaker John Boehner will not schedule a bill not approved in committee.

Nor will this Congress pass the most attractive proposal Obama mentioned, the Dream Act, providing a path to legalization for those brought in illegally as children who enroll in college or serve in the military. That failed last December in a more Democratic Senate and won't pass now.

Some new approach is needed, and Obama did little to point the way. One idea, advanced by a bipartisan Brookings Institution panel, is a bill that would strengthen enforcement and would shift the U.S. away from low-skill and toward high-skill immigration.

Canada and Australia have done this to their great benefit. And with a sluggish economy it makes little sense, as current law does, to give preference to low-skill siblings of minimum wage workers rather than to engineering and science Ph.D.s. We need more job creators, not more job seekers.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

From Rand Paul and Town Hall - Right to Work!

From Rand Paul (R-KY) and Town Hall

Dear Concerned American,

They snickered when I said I came to the U.S. Senate to change Congress.

But their laughter stopped when I sponsored the National Right to Work Act to free U.S. workers from forced unionization and break Big Labor's multi-billion dollar political machine forever.

President Barack Obama and Big Labor allies in the Senate are now feverishly scheming to bury the National Right to Work Act without a vote.

So I have a question for you.

Will you be the sledgehammer?

Your signature on the petition to your Congressman and Senators is what is needed to bust through the opposition and force a vote on the National Right to Work Act.

This is an opportunity you and I cannot afford to miss.

As you know, the right to decide freely whether or not to join a union was taken away from American workers by Congress almost 75 years ago.

A result of back-room deals between union bosses and their tax-and-spend Congressional puppets, compulsory unionism provisions in federal law currently empower union officials to:

Force nearly 11 million Americans to pay tribute to a union boss to get or keep a job ...

Brazenly loot union treasuries to fund the election of their hand-picked political puppet candidates like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ...

Terrorize workers and communities with violent strikes -- where they get away with beatings, arson -- even murder.

The National Right to Work Act strikes at the foundations of the union bosses' power.

And here's the thing -- the National Right to Work Act is wildly popular with American voters.

In fact, for years polls have shown nearly 80% of Americans think it should be against the law to force workers to pay money to union bosses just to get or keep a job.

All you and I have to do is force an up-or-down roll call vote on the National Right to Work Act ... And the American people will do the rest.

Many Democrats and more than a few Republicans elected with Big Labor's over $1 billion in forced-dues political cash cower in fear of casting a vote against the National Right to Work Act.

What will they do when forced to vote?

It's a win-win situation -- either they pass the National Right to Work Act and free American workers or they pay in 2012.

It will be a marathon battle.

But I will not flinch in the face of opposition and insider attacks.

I believe, with your help, this is a fight we will win.

And I know it's a fight worth fighting.

Please go here to sign the petition if you believe in a right to work.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden

Very interesting and not surprising account of indecision and political maneuvering by the Administration before the Osama bin Laden mission. Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.
Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.
What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.

At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.
In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.

Stay safe.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

The Left's Hypocrisy - Where is the Outrage on Fuel Prices

Where is the liberal complaints on the fuel prices like they were when Geo W. Bush was President? Where is Nancy Pelosi's indignation? $1.87 a gallon when Obama was elected,...not we're paying $4.00+ per gallon.

This is from the Don Smith Show

In 2006 the Democrats and the media screamed bloody murder over the high price of gas. When Barack Obama was inaugurated, the average gas price was $1.87 a gallon. Now that the price has more than doubled, what are the Democrats and the administration saying now? If you guessed that high gas prices under Obama are somehow a good thing, give yourself a pat on the back. The liberal mindset is always an amazing thing to behold.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

In the Wake of Osama's Takedown

How embarrassing it is for the Obama Administration for the public to learn that vital information came from the CIA's enhanced interrogation programs that led to the Osama bin Laden takedown. Current CIA Chief Leon Panetta has confirmed that.

Embarrasing also the uber leftist-liberals supporters that President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton, who are all on record as saying coerced interrogation does not work. Yet these politicians are reveling in the removal of Osama bin Scumbag from the face of the earth.

Shame on these leftists who always want their bread buttered on both sides.

Now stay tuned,...stayed finely tuned for leftists calls to investigate the SEALS that killed Osama. We have already heard about rumblings from the United Nations about looking into possible "human rights abuses" and even "murder" from this operation.

And I would not put it past this Administration to have the Justice Department conduct an investigation into the operation. Attorney General Holder is famous for causes that go against not only plain common sense but the will of the American people.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

April 2011 Townhall Republican Presidential Straw Poll

I should have published this post before the previous post on the South Carolina Republican Presidential debates. This would have set the stage for the debate upset where Herman Cain came out of no where to become a leading candidate. Way too many things will influence who is left standing this time next year,.....campaign organization and funding, support from the RNC, and endorsements,..... not to mention performance and public perception from future debates and interviews.

Right now, I'm supporting Herman Cain. He Cowboyed Up in front of South Carolina and television viewers, and I think the measure of the man clearly indicates he has what it takes to led this Country in the some of the darkest days this Republic has seen.

Townhall published the results of their April Republican Presidential Straw Poll. No surprise that Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is polling on top as his small government, anti-federal tax stand resonates with staunch constitutionalists. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Plain dropped a few percentage points and out of first, probably because of her lack of exposure during the month.

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, also known as Taxachusetts, finished third, slightly above former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Romney suffers from his lack of ultra solid conservative credentials, previously supporting abortion and installing a Obama like Health Care plan for Massachusetts . Huckabee may be hurting from his television show which often side steps some front row political issues as well as his polite, moderate mannerisms which may be perceived to lack the fire of a Presidential candidate.

Perhaps the smartest candidate is Newt Gingrich, but he may be perceived as “old school” when to comes to problems like this country has never faced before. It warms my heart to see Herman Cain polling well as his well delivered message is getting a bigger audience.

Congressman Paul Ryan, N.J. Governor Chris Christie and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann round out the top 9, mainly for their common sense approaches to the budget deficit and smaller federal government. Christie has a proven track record in New Jersey , but he still has a lot of work to do. Ryan is the lightening rod of Democrat scorn, even from the President, for his methodology in approaching budget cuts and suggested management of this Country’s fiscal crisis.

Ensure you vote in the next TownHall straw poll. For May Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour and Jim DeMint have been removed as they announced they will not be running for president. Former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer and Businessman Donald Trump are added for April.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Republican Presidental Debate - South Carolina, May 5th, 2011

Just finished watching the first of many Republican Presidential debates. The surprising news is which Republican candidates or presumed candidates did not show up, and of the five who did, which one won.

Those of us watching on Television or sitting in the auditorium in South Carolina watched Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorium and Gary Johnson answer questions.

Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump skipped this debate for various reasons. What they learned is that skipping this debate was a mistake.

The focus group as well as several political observers almost unanimously said that this debate winner was Herman Cain (my winner as well) and that Romney, Huckabee, Bachmann, etc. now have to work extra hard to prove they belong in the field. In fact, the Fox News focus group of 29 people had about 22 supporting Herman Cain, a overwhelming majority and especially significant when most of the people did not know him prior to this debate. By my count Rick Santorium came in second. 

While again I had Herman Cain coming out on top, I think Rick Santorium made the case for his conservatives creds and record as a Senator from Pennsylvania. Ron Paul, while having the Tea Party support (from which I count myself a member) comes across as too whiny and weak on foreign policy....but I do like his unrelenting State Rights positions. I could support former Minnesota Governor Pawlenty if he is the candidate. And I think we should all hope that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson skips town.

Herman Cain, Businessman

Rick Santorium, former Senator (R-PA)

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor (R-MN)

Ron Paul, Congressman (R-TX)

Gary Johnson, former Governor (R-NM)

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Mexico - Wanting to Blame the U.S. ......Again

Received from the National Rifle Association Legislative Alerts. Mexico - another example, this time of a Nation and not individuals, who are failing to take responsibility for their own actions or in-actions Calderon is sitting down there in the opulent Mexican Presidential Palace while thousands of his people kill each other and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, scramble to live each and every day.

In another chapter in the ongoing attempt to blame the American gun community for Mexico's internal strife, CBS News reports that the Mexican government has retained the New York City-based law firm of Reid Collins & Tsai to examine its options for suing U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors. This report describes Mexico's actions as a "novel approach," in reality, such lawsuits have been used for decades as a tactic by anti-gun groups and governments in their attempts to bankrupt gun manufacturers and circumvent the political process.

That's why Congress passed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" in 2005. This act protects firearms manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from suits brought about as a result of "the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." The outlook for a Mexican government suit looks dim; since the PLCAA was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26, 2005, no federal court has allowed such a suit by a government plaintiff to go forward against a U.S. firearms manufacturer.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Osama bin Laden? No, Osama bin Dead for four days now

Shot in the head after his "secret" compound was taken down in a exceptional well crafted and executed raid by 40 members of SEAL Team 6, Obama bin Laden - the master planner behind Al Qaeda's campaign to wage war on America is now dead and buried at sea where he'll be feeding fishes.

Some say that it took guts for President Obama to authorize a strike into Pakistan to get this sucker, but from the all the heat former President Clinton took when he fired missiles into Al Qaeda training camps over a decade ago in a failed attempt to kill bin Laden, I say he had no choice but for a ground strike.

Obama said that "Osama's death was the single biggest blow ever to Al Qaeda". Boy do I sure disagree. I think the liberation of Afghanistan putting Al Qaeda on the run into the Hindu Kush was the single biggest blow. Osama at the time of this death was a virtual prisoner and could only communicate via messenger which made his command and control of a world wide terrorist group sketchy at best.

A big "Hoo-rah" to SEAL Team 6.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Professor Lovel on SB 1070 and Obama Attack on Arizona

Professor Terry J. Lovell, is a professor (Ph.D.) at Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona. He makes his points very clear and has a little bit of a different take then what most of us have heard before.

This may be the best video produced on the illegal alien problems that are being experienced. Keep in mind that a requirement for all legal aliens to carry identification is not a heavy lift. In ANY other country in the world that you are a visitor to, you are required to keep identification on your person and failure to do so means jail for you. Also know that one third (1/3) of the cost to our prisons are to keep foreign felons.