Visit Counter

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Chavez about ready to cash in



Any friend of Ahmadinejad is a friend of ours.


Already signed on to be pallbearers.





Stone...is seeking (won't take much) the movie rights for his epic new film 
HUGO



So overwrought at the news they had to be sedated. 









Hugo Chavez Fighting For His Life, Venezuela's Vice President Maduro Says



CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela's vice president said Thursday that President Hugo Chavez is fighting for his life while he continues to undergo treatment more than two months after his latest cancer surgery.

Vice President Nicolas Maduro said on television that Chavez "is battling there for his health, for his life, and we're accompanying him."

The vice president has used similar phrasing in the past, saying on Dec. 20 that Chavez "is fighting a great battle ... for his life, for his health."

Chavez hasn't spoken publicly since before his latest cancer operation in Cuba on Dec. 11. He returned to Venezuela on Feb. 18, and the government says he has been undergoing more treatment at a military hospital in Caracas.

Maduro also called for Venezuelans to keep praying for Chavez and to remain loyal to the president. He said Chavez's health had suffered because he had dedicated himself "body and soul" to his work as president.

Chavez himself has previously acknowledged that he was neglecting his health in recent years, often staying up late and drinking dozens of cups of coffee a day.

The president has undergone surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation treatments since June 2011, when he first announced his cancer diagnosis. He hasn't specified the type of cancer or the exact location in his pelvic region where his tumors have been removed.



It's not clear if Barry will attend the funeral of his mentor who once espoused...

[Shower the peasants with gifts and you shall forever hold them in the palm of your hand]







Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Illegals Released Ahead of Automatic Budget Cuts





Barry is rooting for anarchy. A grandstanding son-of-a-bitch he truly is! Of all the areas in government which are so bloated and bursting at the seams with wasteful spending (see below) this is the best he could come up with .. releasing illegal prisoners??? Here's a novel idea. Why not "release" them in Mexico instead of the United States?

 If one or more of these illegals should kill someone he'll squeal...Boehner made me do it. 

 Do you think by taking this indefensible drastic step he cares more about the country... or advancing his own political agenda? BTW...sequestration hasn't even kicked in yet!

America... what does it take for you to see through this scam artist?



Now he can use the sequester as an excuse to fulfill his wet dream of closing down Gitmo



Looming Cuts Spur Mass Release of Illegal Immigrants



In a highly unusual move, federal immigration officials have released hundreds of detainees from immigration detention centers around the country, an effort to save money as automatic budget cuts loom in Washington, officials said Tuesday.

The government has not dropped the deportation cases against the immigrants, however. The detainees have been freed on supervised release while their cases continue in court, officials said.

But the move angered some Republicans, including Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who said the releases were a political gambit by the Obama administration that undermined the continuing negotiations over comprehensive immigration reform and jeopardized public safety.

"It's abhorrent that President Obama is releasing criminals into our communities to promote his political agenda on sequestration," said Mr. Goodlatte, who is running the House hearings on immigration reform. "By releasing criminal immigrants onto the streets, the administration is needlessly endangering American lives."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., also said "these savings could be much more safely and rationally achieved."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Tuesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released more than 500 detainees in his county alone over the weekend. A spokesman for Babeu told FoxNews.com that ICE officials have said they plan to release a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants.

Babeu described the move as a "mass budget pardon" and suggested the administration was going to unnecessary lengths to demonstrate the impact of the so-called sequester.

"President Obama would never release 500 criminal illegals to the streets of his hometown, yet he has no problem with releasing them in Arizona. The safety of the public is threatened and the rule of law discarded as a political tactic in this sequester battle," he said.


The government-wide budget cuts, known as the sequester, are scheduled to take effect on Friday. Immigration officials declined to say whether they intended to make any further cutbacks in detention programs this week.

Officials did not reveal precisely how many detainees were released or where the releases took place, but immigrants' advocates around the country have been reporting that hundreds of detainees were freed in numerous locations, including Hudson County, N.J.; Polk County, Texas; Broward County, Fla.; and New Orleans; and from centers in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and New York.

While immigration officials occasionally free detainees on supervised release, this mass release — so many in such a short span of time — appears to be unprecedented in recent memory, immigration advocates said.

At a White House news briefing on Monday, 
Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary, seemed to hint at the move. "All I can say is, look, we're doing our very best to minimize the impacts of sequester," she told reporters. "But there's only so much I can do. I'm supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration. How do I pay for those?"








A few examples of the government's wasteful spending and this doesn't even scratch the surface:


Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.

Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job. WTF!!!

A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.

The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.

Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 on admission to entertainment events, $48,250 on gambling,$69,300 on cruises, and $73,950 on exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.

Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.

Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.

Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.



See anything here that could be cut instead of releasing illegals?



Funny thing is Barry proposed sequestration and signed it into law. But as usual it's always someone else's fault.








Share/Bookmark

Monday, February 25, 2013

Al always knows what he's talking about...




Spoken like a true man of the cloth..
His mastery of the English language is pretty impressive too!


Not to mention his finesse in reading a teleprompter.


video
video 20

(If video won't play click post title)


He is the m-e-a-s-u-r-e by which all others are judged.




And his recollection of history is striking.

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires..."



Greece 2000 years ago










Africa today




Guess I forgot about that time in history when Africans designed and built grand sailing ships and sailed to America, and although they were heavily outnumbered, captured white people by the thousands and shipped them back to Africa forcing them into slavery.



You can always count on Al to get the facts straight...


...who could forget the Duke Lacrosse Scandal when he said,  "there were certainly a lot of racial factors,” and “racism is in the air” involving the Duke players.

..Or the Crown Heights Riot when he referred to Jews as "Diamond merchants"

...How can one not marvel at Al's uncanny ability to be an eyewitness to the "murder" of  Trayvon Martin even though he was not within 500 miles of the incident...

Now he's got his own TV show. You've got to hand it to MSNBC for recognizing this kind of talent!








Share/Bookmark

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Mayor of small city was 'too stupid and uneducated' to know his $100k salary was illegal, his lawyer argues





Really... If he was "too stupid" what does that say about the people who voted for him?


Eight Dems Arrested in Bell, CA 'Corruption on Steroids' - Not a Single Mention of Party Affiliation From Media

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/09/21/eight-dems-arrested-bell-ca-corruption-steroids-not-single-mention-p#ixzz2LdiXGI3S

Normally when a story is written about a politician whether it be a Democrat or Republican the party affiliation follows the name (D) or (R). However when the story is deemed harmful or detrimental in nature if it's a Democrat the (D) is dropped.

Even on Wikipedia there is no mention of their party affiliation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal



To top it off after these people were brought to justice the good citizens of Bell, CA voted in new Council members... Democrats all!!!

Rubio's water drinking episode has turned into his own personal "Watergate" yet Menendez's alleged sexual exploits with under aged prostitutes goes unreported.





Mayor of small city was 'too stupid and uneducated' to know his $100k salary was illegal, his lawyer argues


Oscar Hernandez is illiterate, has no high school degree and didn't even finish elementary school, defense attorney Stanley Friedmand told jurors. Hernandez and five former members of the Bell City Council are on trial, accused of stealing $1.3million in exorbitant pay from the working-class city of 35,000.The former mayor of Bell, California, was too stupid and uneducated to know his $100,000 salary for the part-time city job was illegal, his lawyer argued today.



'Too dumb to know better': The lawyer for former Bell, California, Mayor Oscar Hernandez said his client is illiterate and uneducated and didn't know his $100,000 salary was illegal

All six elected officials drew salaries of up to $100,000 for serving on boards that seldom met and accomplished little.

Defense lawyers painted the officials as ignorant pawns of city manager Robert Rizzo and city attorney Edward Lee, who both advised them that massive pay raises were legal.

The attorneys for the former officials also blamed the city's financial advisory firm, which never advised the town to pare back the salaries, they say.

Deputy District Attorney Edward Miller, though, said the officials all had important jobs in the community before their election. They weren't daft or pawns - just greedy, according to the Los Angeles Times.
(Again no mention of party affiliation!)

Hernandez owned a grocery store. Former council member Teresa Jacobo was a real estate agent and former councilman George Mirabal had worked as a city clerk.

In cuffs: Robert Rizzo, former city manager, Angela Spaccia, former assistant city manager, Victor Bello, former council member and Oscar Hernandez, mayor, were all arrested as part of a corruption investigation


'They just weren't "yes men," except when it came to pay raises for themselves,' Mr Miller told jurors.

The officials are accused of appointing each other to boards, some of which met only once a year, in order to skirt public pay laws.

In the midst of the recession, the officials were earning $100,000 from the city - three and a half times the median income of the citizens they were elected to represent.

The average salary for part-time elected officials at other California cities of similar size was $4,800.





Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 21, 2013

How do you reconcile this...


With the sequestration speech he gave below?


Wasn't it Barry who said when asked about sequestration during the presidential debates... "it'll never happen?"



Now it's a major catastrophe but Congress can't be found. 750,00 jobs will be lost overnight. No first responders. No food inspectors. People on the streets starving. 

...Barry was so distraught, the only consolation he could find was playing golf with Tiger Woods.



HOW MUCH IT COSTS FOR A PRESIDENTIAL BOYS WEEKEND

$943,687.50: estimated cost of a trip for Air Force One from Chicago to West Palm Beach and then back to Washington, D.C.

$13,500: Cost to rent out three four-bedroom guest cottages at The Floridian for three nights

$24,000: Cost of an eight-hour private golf lesson with famed instructor Butch Harmon

$1,800: Greens fees for three guests for two rounds of golf

$1,600: Cost of four caddies for two rounds of golf

$4,620: Cost of 20 rooms at the Port St. Lucie Holiday Inn for the security detail.






As usual Barry can't find his balls



 Flashback Nov. 2011- Obama promises veto of efforts to get around sequester cuts.

(If video won't load click post title)




Video 18


If he's not a liar what is he? 
How can Barry now say with a straight face he's against
 sequestration 
when he and Jack Lew were the ones who came up with the idea in the first place? 
 He wants to break the agreement he created, endorsed with bipartisan support in Congress, and NOW blames those meat-cleavers, harmful cutting, (aka Republicans) for the debacle while the MSM sits idly by seeing no incongruity!




He uses the same underhanded, deceitful, tactic when he wants the debt ceiling raised. Even though the government takes in $2.4 trillion a year in taxes; what's the first thing out of his mouth?

"I can't guarantee you those Social Security checks are going to go out."


BTW...You ever wonder.. why is the focus on hard working people who earned Social Security instead of the 47 million "leeches" who sit on their ass getting a welfare check?

I have video after video using his own words proving he's an habitual liar. Yet he still has the ability to play the majority of the voting public for suckers.

Bottom line. We have a totally inept Congress. One which cannot follow the rules they themselves laid down.






Remarks by President Obama on sequestration (transcript)


As provided by the White House.

The stage had been set using first responders.
You call this good
 theatrics; where are the starving children?








10:50 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. (Applause.) Please have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House.

As I said in my State of the Union address last week, our top priority must be to do everything we can to grow the economy and create good, middle-class jobs. That's our top priority. That's our North Star. That drives every decision we make. And it has to drive every decision that Congress and everybody in Washington makes over the next several years.

And that's why it's so troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite. It won't help the economy, won't create jobs, will visit hardship on a whole lot of people.

Here's what's at stake. Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce our deficits by more than $2.5 trillion. More than two-thirds of that was through some pretty tough spending cuts. The rest of it was through raising taxes — tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. And together, when you take the spending cuts and the increased tax rates on the top 1 percent, it puts us more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.

Now, Congress, back in 2011, also passed a law saying that if both parties couldn't agree on a plan to reach that $4 trillion goal, about a trillion dollars of additional, arbitrary budget cuts would start to take effect this year. And by the way, the whole design of these arbitrary cuts was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that Democrats and Republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. And so this was all designed to say we can't do these bad cuts; let's do something smarter. That was the whole point of this so-called sequestration.

Unfortunately, Congress didn't compromise. They haven't come together and done their jobs, and so as a consequence, we've got these automatic, brutal spending cuts that are poised to happen next Friday.



(If video won't load click post title)






Video 19

The America we once knew is no more. Only because the assholes who live here voted for him him. 


Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won't consider whether we're cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It doesn't make those distinctions.

Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.

And already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf. And as our military leaders have made clear, changes like this — not well thought through, not phased in properly — changes like this affect our ability to respond to threats in unstable parts of the world.

So these cuts are not smart. They are not fair. They will hurt our economy. They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. This is not an abstraction — people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.

And that's why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists, they've already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as sequestration, are a bad idea. They're not good for our economy. They're not how we should run our government.

And here's the thing: They don't have to happen. There is a smarter way to do this –- to reduce our deficits without harming our economy. But Congress has to act in order for that to happen.

Now, for two years, I've offered a balanced approach to deficit reduction that would prevent these harmful cuts. I outlined it again last week at the State of the Union. I am willing to cut more spending that we don't need, get rid of programs that aren't working. I've laid out specific reforms to our entitlement programs that can achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms that were proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. I'm willing to save hundreds of billions of dollars by enacting comprehensive tax reform that gets rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well off and well connected, without raising tax rates.

I believe such a balanced approach that combines tax reform with some additional spending reforms, done in a smart, thoughtful way is the best way to finish the job of deficit reduction and avoid these cuts once and for all that could hurt our economy, slow our recovery, put people out of work. And most Americans agree with me.

The House and the Senate are working on budgets that I hope reflect this approach. But if they can't get such a budget agreement done by next Friday — the day these harmful cuts begin to take effect — then at minimum, Congress should pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would prevent these harmful cuts — not to kick the can down the road, but to give them time to work together on a plan that finishes the job of deficit reduction in a sensible way.

I know Democrats in the House and in the Senate have proposed such a plan — a balanced plan, one that pairs more spending cuts with tax reform that closes special interest loopholes and makes sure that billionaires can't pay a lower tax rate than their salary — their secretaries.

And I know that Republicans have proposed some ideas, too. I have to say, though, that so far at least the ideas that the Republicans have proposed ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations, so the burden is all on first responders or seniors or middle-class families. They double down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that I've outlined. They slash Medicare and investments that create good, middle-class jobs. And so far at least what they've expressed is a preference where they'd rather have these cuts go into effect than close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest Americans. Not one.

Well, that's not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever. It's all taxes. That's not the position Democrats have taken. That's certainly not the position I've taken. It's wrong to ask the middle class to bear the full burden of deficit reduction. And that's why I will not sign a plan that harms the middle class.

So now Republicans in Congress face a simple choice: Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them? Or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations? That's the choice.

Are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their job because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole? Are you willing to have teachers laid off, or kids not have access to Head Start, or deeper cuts in student loan programs just because you want to protect a special tax interest loophole that the vast majority of Americans don't benefit from? That's the choice. That's the question.

And this is not an abstraction. There are people whose livelihoods are at stake. There are communities that are going to be impacted in a negative way. And I know that sometimes all this squabbling in Washington seems very abstract, and in the abstract, people like the idea, there must be some spending we can cut, there must be some waste out there. There absolutely is. But this isn't the right way to do it.

So my door is open. I've put tough cuts and reforms on the table. I am willing to work with anybody to get this job done. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But nobody should want these cuts to go through, because the last thing our families can afford right now is pain imposed unnecessarily by partisan recklessness and ideological rigidity here in Washington.

As I said at the State of the Union, the American people have worked too hard, too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause yet another one. And it seems like every three months around here there's some manufactured crisis. We've got more work to do than to just try to dig ourselves out of these self-inflicted wounds.

And while a plan to reduce our deficit has to be part of our agenda, we also have to remember deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan. We learned in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was President, nothing shrinks the deficit faster than a growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs. That should be our driving focus — making America a magnet for good jobs. Equipping our people with the skills required to fill those jobs. Making sure their hard work leads to a decent living. Those are the things we should be pushing ourselves to think about and work on every single day. That's what the American people expect. That's what I'm going to work on every single day to help deliver.

So I need everybody who's watching today to understand we've got a few days. Congress can do the right thing. We can avert just one more Washington-manufactured problem that slows our recovery, and bring down our deficits in a balanced, responsible way. That's my goal. That's what would do right by these first responders. That's what would do right by America's middle class. That's what I'm going to be working on and fighting for not just over the next few weeks, but over the next few years.

Thanks very much, everybody. 

Thank you, guys, for your service. (Applause.)  [sic]





Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Warriors with wombs



On a a tip from Ed Kilbane




WOMEN IN FOXHOLES
Gen. Patrick Brady says putting females in combat poses 'an insane burden on readiness






By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)


For many Americans, it is hard to believe that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could top his statement in defense of the administration's tragic bungling of the terrorists' massacre in Benghazi: "(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place (The Obama Panetta Doctrine)." But he did top it.


In justification of the administration's policy to put women in foxholes, he claimed that women in (direct) combat strengthen our military. His statement is a contradiction of every war we have fought and the ethos of every warrior who ever fought in those wars. But it does reflect the attitude of the commander in chief, disastrously over his head in the international arena, a "leader" unable to make tough decision who is fearful of risk and does not know the difference between a corps and a corpse. He is more comfortable around homosexuals and feminists than warriors. Panetta's statement extolling the readiness multiplier of women leading bayonet charges is beyond the pale.


Neither Obama nor Panetta has ever served in combat, nor has most of Congress. But worse, none of the current military leadership has had any serious combat (in the trenches) experience, and it is beginning to show.


World War II was won by combat veterans from World War I. In Korea we had the veterans of World War II, and in Vietnam the combat veterans of both World War II and Korea. The Vietnam veteran won Desert Storm. All those warriors and their leadership are gone, and we see a military with dismal leadership resulting in unprecedented rates of suicide, PTSD and security breaches. We had one high-ranking officer lament that the terrorist's massacre at Fort Hood would damage his diversity efforts! Leadership relieved the judge in the trial of the Fort Hood terrorist for enforcing military shaving rules on the terrorist – and after over three years, he is not tried! And they are calling that obvious terrorist massacre "workplace violence," deliberately depriving those killed and their families of deserved benefits.


Unimaginable in our past, we have leaders who consider awarding medals for not shooting, and now a medal for risking carpal tunnel syndrome that outranks the time-honored Bronze Star for valor. This gaggle actually lost graves of our warriors at Arlington Cemetery and are attacking the benefits of America's nobility – our veterans. I don't know where the term girlie men came from, but it perfectly describes many in this administration and their military leaders.


After commanding an all-men medical unit in combat, I commanded a medical battalion, including many women, in peacetime. These units are not direct-combat units but do spend a lot of time on the battlefield and are exposed to enemy fire and casualties. But it is nothing like the exposure of the grunts in the mud and grime for days and weeks at a time.


My rule in the battalion was standards, not gender-governed, except where they were already assigned, i.e., medics and mechanics. This was during the '70s, a tough time for drugs and discipline in the military. Here is what I found. As a result of competition, my driver and our color guard, highly contested duty, were women. The women had less disciplinary problems than the men. In administrative jobs, they were at least equal to men. But most could not carry their load physically – loading litters in choppers, carrying wounded to safety, even lifting tool chests. As a result the men covered for them, often causing us to use two people when one should have done the job – all of which effected readiness. They were not good in the field and became less functional when issues of hygiene, and feminine hygiene, literally knocked them out and we had to jerry-rig showers, wasting valuable time.


And they got pregnant, which took out key jobs at critical times. Other sexual distractions, favoritisms, fraternization and assault are also readiness disruptions and follow women throughout the military, even in our military academies. I had serious problems with wives whose husbands shared standby shacks with women overnight. This would go on for weeks in direct combat units; think tank crews. Male bonding, immeasurable to success in combat, would be damaged. All in all, the women pose an insane burden on readiness.


My conclusion, which I passed to my division commander at his request, was that I would not want females with me working the battlefield let alone in direct combat. I told him I would not want my daughters in a unit of half women going bayonet to bayonet with an enemy unit 100 percent men. Those comments almost cost me my career because my immediate superior disagreed, which may explain some of the obsequiousness and cowering of military leaders today on this issue and a quad-sexual military.


The move to teach our daughters and mothers to kill is defended using the same criteria I used in my battalion: standards, not sex-govern. It does not work. Most men will not treat women as they do other men – thankfully. And there is no intention to do so despite what we hear. Listen to our top military leader, Gen. Martin Dempsey: "If we decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?" Those standards have been set over hundreds of years of combat! We should change them to satisfy the crazes of the president's feminist supporters? Imagine how Gen. George Patton and all the leaders who founded and secured this country would react to those comments.


I have said, and many men agree with me, that Adam's rib was the greatest investment in human history. Why? Because God then gave man woman, a different creature, who complemented him. God did it on purpose, and we are privileged to live with the differences. Feminists et al., get over it. It is not discrimination to accommodate God's design; it is acknowledging His will – it is wisdom.


Despite "Kill Bill" and other Hollywood visuals of females pummeling men, women for the most part are not designed to kill. And they will not be good at it. God designed them to produce life and nurture it, not destroy it. They don't belong in the trenches of the NFL or in the octagon in Ultimate Fighting; combat is the ultimate Ultimate Fighting – and they don't belong there, either.


It is difficult to teach some men to kill, but they have no choice. Imagine a draft and a nation forcing our women into killing units. Visualize what will happen to women POWs, not to mention homosexuals, captured by our most likely enemies. We have heard of the man who sent his wife downstairs to check on a possible burglar (I actually knew such a man). We are becoming a nation like that man, a girlie nation. There will always be burglars, (international thugs), most of whom are male, and they should be confronted by males.


Why these ridiculous changes? No serous person could believe that women in foxholes will do anything but reduce readiness. Just as devastating is the formation of a quad-sexual military, which introduces sodomy not only to foxholes but military communities – and with it serious health and deployment issues. Pregnant females cannot deploy, and some will get pregnant to avoid it. Homosexuals cannot give blood and may not be deployable. Every warrior is a walking blood bank – who would want his son or daughter to receive a blood transfusion from a homosexual? The NBA stops a basketball game for a drop of blood because of the threat of infection, the Magic Johnson rule; Johnson had AIDS. The battlefield is full of blood. Do we think less of our soldiers than the NBA does of its players? What will be the reaction when a warrior sees his commanding officer dancing and romancing another man – or if he is hit on by a homosexual? Yet we are told these changes will improve readiness.


Sequestration, designed by President Obama, will, if allowed to kick in, emasculate what is left of our military. Aside from the cruel impact these budget cuts will have on military careers and families, they are perfectly suited to Obama's isolationist goals. He is a rhetorical celebrity dedicated to social issues, i.e. same-sex marriage, gun control and government running just about everything. He is also a man intimidated by crises and the decisions they require. He is a voting-present leader, and we are learning he was not even present to lead during the massacre at Benghazi. He apparently hid out during the entire event and tried to blame it on a video. What would he do during a major 9/11-type crisis? An insignificant military takes us off the world stage and requires only voting present in future crises, which perfectly suits our present leadership. We can only pray there will be no such crises.


Get the full account of Gen. Brady's Vietnam rescue operations in his book, "Dead Men Flying," a riveting tale from America's most decorated living soldier – autographed!

Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military's highest decoration, the Medal of Honor.



© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Read his medal of honor citation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry_Brady









Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

"ONLY IN AMERICA" OBSERVATIONS -- BY A CANADIAN







You'd think it was a joke. Unfortunately it's not.

The last time he said, "it won't cost a dime" we got saddled with ObamaCare. Name one government program that's not in the red. 

Wasn't it Milton Friedman who once said:

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

---------------------------------------------





1) Only in America could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.

3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as"extremists."

7) Only in America do you need photo ID  to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America could liberal politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience ... and a complete failure at his job ... be re-elected.








Share/Bookmark