Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

UPDATE! Benghazi CIA Operators Told To Stand Down; Fallen Navy Seal Dad “The President & Hillary Did Not Tell Me The Truth”

CIA Operators, Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, heard the cries from the CIA safe house nearby.  All accounts have these men fighting until their deaths.  But what we know now is that not only did they send 3 separate requests for help, they were told to “Stand Down”.  Fox News reports that

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

They ignored those orders.  They went to the rescue of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans on scene.  They took fire, rescued as many as they could, but could not find Ambassador Stevens, so they returned to the CIA “annex” located a few miles away.  At that point they started to receive mortar fire, and they called again for help.  And that request was denied, too. They were denied a total of 3 times.

 FOX  is the only Main Steam Media reporting on Benghazi, you can find the whole report here.  This part of this story is still breaking, we will continue to update as needed. Update below.

There are some stories that hit a chord, when you sit down to write, there is a fear you won’t convey the proper words, sometimes there are no words.  Being that the Main Stream Media is ignoring “all things Benghazi” its up to us, regular Americans, to do “their” job and spread the truth.  To spread the truth so these heroes will not have died in vain.  With that said, this  story will enrage you, and it should.

Charles Woods is the father of Tyrone Woods, the ex-Navy Seal who answered the call from the Benghazi “CIA Safe House” which was attacked on September 11th, 2012.  Tyrone didn’t make it out alive, but not before he fought valiantly for  several hours, taking out dozens of terrorists.  When Tyrone’s body was brought back via Andrew’s Air Force base, his father Charles was on hand to receive his slain son’s flag draped coffin.  After Obama and Hillary spoke, Charles was greeted separately by Obama and Hillary.  As Obama greeted Charles, Charles stated:

“…his face was pointed toward me, but he could not look me in the eye, he looked somewhere over my shoulder, and his handshake was like a dead fish.  I am a retired Judge, and it was my job to know when someone is telling the truth, his voice was not forceful–not like ‘I am really sorry about this Mr. Woods’, no he was not sorry or remorseful.  I could tell he wasn’t being truthful.  I didn’t speak out before, but after I learned they knew, I want to know who it was that gave the order to not protect…to not send in troops? ” (emphasis mine)

Mr. Woods goes on to relate his encounter then with Hillary Clinton.  Hillary, gave him a “hug”, and he thanked her for taking the time to come and speak with him.  Mr. Woods goes on to state:

“…..first off she said she was “sorry”, her countenance was not good, she then tells me ‘we will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted’ and I could tell, she was not telling me the truth, I mean she is smarter than me, I’m sure, and she knew she was not telling me the truth…”

Charles Woods also was incensed by VP Joe Biden.  Blundering Joe is one thing, but what he said to Mr. Woods is so crass  and in this case, so offensive:

….then Joe Biden in a real ‘boisterous” voice says ‘yea, I’ve gotten a call like that in the middle of the night, hey let me ask you something, did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’

Yea, Joe, I’m sure watching that live feed, watching men who go in and take fire, realizing at some point they were it, no back-up would be coming, God forgive you, Obama and Hillary.  God help us.  Obama, you- Joe and Panetta were meeting at 5pm during this attack, and CIA sources report it would be the POTUS who would have to say “stand down”.  And all you have to offer this slain hero’s Dad has to do with the anatomy of his private parts?

Let me say why this story is so very important right now.  Charles Woods says he is a man of faith, and that one thing he knows for sure—is that his son did not die in vain.  As it stands, this story—Tyrone Woods’ story and all 4 dead Americans, their deaths may well be swept under the rug by the Main Stream Media, the Benghazi cover-up forgotten in a few weeks.  So, for these Americans deaths to be not in vain, we must make this the turning point—it would be the turning point in this Election if it had the same press as a Cindy Sheehan.

This Country may well perish for lack of knowledge–information.  I know one thing, most Americans are good honorable people.  Many are just not “plugged in” to these events, and they then have no idea that we have a President who lies, who dishonors, who is so arrogant, who is condescending.   He thinks he can “lecture” and use “mock anger” as he did in that second debate over Benghazi.   I don’t think I will ever forget his superb acting when he reeled around at Romney saying “I take it as an offense for anyone to suggest that I don’t take this seriously, it is I who has to stand over those graves, meet those families, and to suggest I or anyone in my Administration would politicize such a thing…well is despicable”.

No, they Obama, Biden, and Hillary just stood over those coffins and lied, and they felt no remorse.  These people do not  represent me,  they do not represent who America is—this really has nothing whatsoever to do with Politics.  This has to do with honor, and decency, who who we are as Americans.  I know many of you wanted to believe that Obama was going to be the next Abe Lincoln, a man who would bring us all together.  You wanted to believe he would be fair, that he was for the poor, he was for the disenfranchised. I am sorry, I wanted that too—but its time to face the truth.  He is none of those things.

Are we so numb to Charles Wood’s pain?   We can’t bring his son back, a son who died for our Freedom.  But we can honor him, by promising to do what we can, to restore America’s honor.  And that has to start with the defeat of Obama and his regime.

Hear Charles Woods interview on FOX here.

Look to the lady who could lead

Monica Morill and former Prime Minister Thatcher

Hillary is facing a Monica moment. With the unveiling of the Benghazi catastrophe, ‘disgraceful, embarrassing and deadly’ is the obvious description used to portray current U.S. foreign policy. This is a narrative that could have been avoided, if the people responsible listened to the warning signs, we know this. But even after September 11, numerous opportunities have been squandered to share the truth about the Benghazi attack and the death of four Americans. What disappoints millions of voting Americans is the haze of information surrounding the attacks, the lack of clarity regarding who is in charge, and the pitiful, flawed leadership.

The implications are stunning. Joe Biden’s comment: “We did not know that they [Ambassador Stevens and Americans] wanted more security there” in Libya, parallels Bill Clinton’s, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…Monica Lewinsky,” statement. The additional excuses surrounding the Benghazi attacks, now publicly questioned, are deplorable and unconvincing. However, let’s not look to Joe Biden who has been on the wrong side of American foreign policy consistently for 30 years, let’s not look to the overall wobbly nature of leaders in the Obama Administration thanks to Valerie Jarrett and Obama himself.

It’s time now that we reflect on the true leadership of a woman who had clear, decisive, and powerful leadership. She was a lady among the firsts, not the first Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, nor the First Lady Hillary Clinton (who claims many firsts), but the first lady Prime Minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher.

The precision of Thatcher’s decision-making was exceptional. She stood by her open choices, nothing was hidden, she followed through with principled conviction when many around her surrendered to political convenience, and once her assessment was made rarely did Thatcher ever back down. True she had one of the blessed political unions of the century with Ronald Reagan, and their combined strength was in foreign policy. The most striking example between Thatcher and Reagan was their response to Cold War strategies, which strengthened and compounded one another. They stood firm in the face of the Soviet deployment of cruise and nuclear missiles. Thatcher was an ironclad lady, yet softened by the Hollywood personality and tough spirit of a gentleman. The political cooperation between the U.S. and UK amidst criticisms of higher military spending was challenging, but the collective leadership by Thatcher and Reagan was crucial to ending the Cold War.

Why is this reflection so important now? At the center of the Benghazi questioning, Americans are witnessing the opposite of the Thatcher legacy; the Obama Administration is desperately vacillating. The choices that have been and continue to be made do not produce answers, the wavering choices the Obama Administration makes simply produces more questions.

Political pundits are recalling Hillary’s trend of standing by her man. Hillary’s decision to repair her marriage with Bill after his numerous and very public extra-marital affairs is her personal choice and her blessing to forgive. Likewise, Hillary decided to suspend her 2008 Presidential Campaign and support Obama, a massive decision she needed to weigh carefully. But when Hillary chose to end her opposition to Barack Obama she was also choosing to enter a new relationship with him, and more importantly a subsequent political marriage or union with the American people as Secretary of State, for better or worse. Hillary now faces a very similar defining moment with Barack Obama as she did with Bill, with the exception of one key distinction. Will Hillary stand among the betrayers or among the betrayed? She has clear and distinct choices here. Hillary can remain in the Obama Administration and face the political consequences of her decision, or Hillary can abandon the Obama Administration and come clean about what really happened. Hillary’s decision needs to be crystal clear, as significant as an earnest utterance from the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Hillary faced a personal dilemma when she had to decide whether to remain married to Bill, when it came to marital infidelity. But the decision she faces between now and November 6 is far more serious, it is a question of national political infidelity, her commitment to U.S. national security. Hillary knows Obama has been unfaithful to this country, a majority of the public are now aware of Obama’s infidelity to his Presidential Oath. Hillary is at a crossroads. Will she overlook the political betrayal going on in Obama’s Administration or will she sever the political union with Obama? The world is watching very closely. Hillary’s decision to be with Bill is a very personal one and something that should be left up respectfully between them both. But Hillary’s decision to remain with Obama is a very public decision and could undeniably affect her relationship with Americans forever.

When Obama, Biden and Hillary cannot do their jobs without blaming someone else, when they are unable to work together coherently and successfully on foreign policy, this is a telltale sign of confusion, desperation, and incompetence. This is the opposite of Thatcher and Reagan’s relationship and Thatcher’s tactful leadership.

Let’s look at what has been: the details of failures that have occurred over the past few months by the Commander in Chief, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State. But let’s also look at what could be when we view the history of dedicated leadership particularly when it comes to women like Margaret Thatcher effectively guiding her country in difficult times, making the tough choices to be honest, adhering to principled conviction, and never cowering to lies and deception.

Originally posted at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research

Bill Clinton told Hillary To Resign, US Arming ‘Syrian Rebels’ With Ties To Al Queda

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, came forward to “take responsibility overall” for the attacks  at Benghazi, but per Ed Klein we now know behind the scenes Bill Clinton advised his wife  to resign over the possible criminal fallout of the Benghazi massacre.  Today we learn from sources  that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack.  Why?  Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and  why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel?  Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle?  I’d say YES.  Could this be a criminal act, negligence,  dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder?  I’d  say YES.  And I’d say that Hillary is telling the truth as the “source” of these latest developments come straight from her “legal counsel”.   Hillary did prior to September 11th, 2012 order added security for Benghazi, and those requests were denied—but by who?

To fully understand what happened in Benghazi, we need to step back.  Ambassador Stevens was located in a CIA safehouse (otherwise known as the building burned down during attack)–that  location is where on the night of the attack he dined with the Turkish General Counsel.  Why?  Why was Stevens meeting with this Turkish official? Apparently, in reports the US was gun running weapons through Turkey to aid the Syrian Rebels, but the real kicker here is that we handed over 400 tons in one shipment, to Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the leaders of these so called “Syrian Rebels”.  We can speculate what the Turkish General Counsel talked with Ambassador Stevens about that  night—but what is clear is that the Al Queda backed forces were on scene whilst the two men dined.

The ‘Libyan forces’ called the Feb. 17th Brigade, were the extra security which manned that CIA safe house.  On the night of the attack, Sean Smith, sent this message via a gaming app

”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

What is interesting to note here, is the quotations around the word police.  Here, he is referring to the Feb. 17th Brigade, and what it tells me is he is questioning just who these ‘police’ are with, why  are they casing the safe house taking pictures?  We now know that this “Brigade” is an affiliate of Al Queda and they fought under the “Black Flag” of  Al Queda.  Diana West, an expert in Middle East affairs has this to offer:

The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”

Let’s cut to the chase.  Benghazi is shaping up to be the worst cover-up ever in the history of the US.  The 12 reports that were filed within the first 24 hours, outlining to the White House exactly what had transpired, never once mention a “protest” or any “video”.  They do mention Al Queda linked group called Ansar al-Sharia, claiming the attacks.  We know that the drone was feeding live video back to the White house “situation room” and that Obama was in a meeting with Panetta and Biden at the White House—we know they were informed via those emails of the attack in progress.  Is there any doubt they also were watching this live in real time?

And with that info, Obama strolled out to the Rose Garden, and alluded to this “video”.  In later appearances Obama does talk about the “vile” video, slamming Romney for calling it a “terrorist” attack.  The DOJ indicts and arrests a man, albeit with a shady past—but does his family deserve having a price on their head—do they deserve to never return to their home, due to danger?  Does he deserve to be in protective custody due to death threats from Muslim extremists?  Do the 4 dead Americans, and their families, deserve any of what has gone on?

America stands at the crossroads in history.  The Main Stream Media is protecting Obama, so many Americans do not know these details.  They are hoping to slide through the next 2 weeks and pull out a victory, putting back in power the President who watched our fellow Americans die….and then, went to bed.

Obama, Benghazi, and the Blame Game

Scandals bring out the worst in politicians, and politicians engage in scandalous behavior on a regular basis. Of course the people only end up hearing about the latter when said politicians get caught. Normally, this would happen as the result of members of the traditional media uncovering their dastardly deeds, but the age of investigative journalism in the mainstream media is drawing to a close. Now, it is in the hands of new media, and sometimes, other politicians.

Voice of America (CC)

In the case of the Benghazi scandal, it is a little of each. Now, anyone that believes that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the result of protest against an anti-Islam film is either delusional, or has been living under a rock for the past couple weeks. In the interest of being thorough, if anyone lost track, they can consult the timeline here. As for the Congressional Hearings, if nothing else, it can be called a “who’s who of the administration that will be thrown under the bus, if they haven’t been already.” Obviously, the lowest on the totem pole are likely to take the worst. But, as we saw in the Vice Presidential debate, someone obviously forgot to get Joe Biden on board with the administration’s official story on the matter. His statement that he didn’t know the Consulate needed more security came off as though the administration as a whole was unaware. The current message is (maybe?) that Biden and Obama didn’t know, implying some sort of disconnect between the Oval Office and the State Department.

Well, maybe that’s more than just implied, since it’s obvious that there is now a rift between Clinton(s) and Obama. That begs the question why Obama would now trust Bill to hit the campaign trail on his behalf – but, who wants to warn him that could blow up in his face? No one? Figured that.

Otherwise, in the endless effort to blame anyone but themselves, the Obama administration is at least attempting to stick with the “evil Republicans cut the State Department budget, so we couldn’t afford more forces there” argument. They shouldn’t expect that to work very well for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fly when one considers the “greening of Europe” initiative pointed out by Congressman Mike Kelly. As was pointed out in the hearings, obviously the State Department has their priorities a little out of order, since they’re spending huge sums of money on electric cars in Europe, while neglecting to provide needed security personnel in the Middle East and North Africa. But apparently the State Department can afford to send an attorney to babysit Congressman Jason Chaffetz on his trip to Libya to investigate the situation. Perhaps that was why Congress cut the budget in the first place? Second, there’s the problem with communication on National Security matters in the White House. We’ve been told for ages now that Obama rarely bothers with National Security briefings. Now, apparently he’s also not interested in hearing requests for increased security at Embassies. That is a rather odd decision under the circumstances, but who are we to question his choices.

And none of this could possibly be connected to the general state of denial within this administration when it comes to terrorism. We are no longer at war with terrorism. Osama bin Laden is dead. That fixed everything. There couldn’t be an increased threat from al Qaeda. The message is clear – the State Department is right to avoid calling those that attacked the Benghazi Consulate terrorists. And there wasn’t any real danger in Libya, so it was right to scale back security there. Stephanie Cutter is right – it is all Mitt Romney’s fault, and he’s politicizing the situation. Don’t believe her? Just ask Alec Baldwin.

Move along folks, nothing to see here!

Obama and Benghazi-Gate

It’s been 17 days since the attack on the Consulate at Benghazi, and Obama still hasn’t said publicly that it was a terrorist attack. He’s left that to his surrogates, including Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The bizarre situation that we’re left with is a dead-asleep press that is largely ignoring the entire situation, with few exceptions. While CNN has managed to get far more information on the ground in Libya than even our FBI has (since they have yet to make it to the scene, as of reports on the evening of September 27th), they are not really saying much of anything beyond the canned responses that have apparently been approved by the administration. And when CNN was reporting slightly on the contents of a journal owned by Ambassador Chris Stevens, the response from the administration was that it should have been given to the family without any reports on its contents hitting the airwaves. Everyone in the U.S. should have seen enough crime dramas over the years to know that is an extremely bizarre statement, presuming that the government ever had any intention of investigating the attack in the first place. Any normal person would think that knowing what Stevens was writing in the days before the attack might be relevant to the investigation, right?

Secretary of Defense (CC)

And now we’re down to trying to figure out who knew what, and when. For now, it’s become clear that the administration knew from day one that this was a terrorist attack. It had nothing to do with the video that slandered Islam. In the coming months, it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that none of the attacks on Western embassies in the Middle East and North Africa had anything to do with that film. But, beyond all of that, the fact that the administration has admitted fairly quickly that they knew from the beginning the true nature of the attack in Benghazi is unsettling. It was not a situation where the press was exerting any great pressure on them about the situation – they were taking the story they were being spoon fed with the noted exceptions of FoxNews, and a few foreign press agencies. While I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, this definitely causes me to think there’s something more to this whole story.

While the administration has been very quick to point out what a great man Ambassador Stevens was – that’s to be expected – the fact that he was assigned to Libya is a little puzzling. It’s become clear over the past couple weeks that Libya was far less stable than the administration was leading people to believe – and they knew it. Stevens specialized in the Middle East and North Africa, and admittedly, there were other far more stable outposts in the region where he could have been assigned. I suggest this right now because of one glaring fact – Stevens was openly gay. Given the level of hatred and intolerance seen exerted against gays in Islamist nations, the last place any responsible member of the administration should want to place an openly gay diplomat is one where there is even a hint of radical Islamic activity. Either the administration is entirely incompetent, or someone really didn’t care about the safety of Stevens at all when choosing his assignment. Of course, these are issues that may or may not have been addressed in that journal the administration didn’t want CNN reporting about – and apparently didn’t want to read themselves.

There is no proof apparent of what I’ve suggested above. It is merely an observation, based on the few facts available right now – call it an exercise in basic logic. And perhaps it is a suggestion to the few people out there that are really interested in finding out the truth about this attack. Beyond searching for information on the radicals in Libya, another priority should be investigating what was really going on in the administration before the attack. Did Stevens have any enemies in the administration? Were there any under-the-table deals going on between the administration and Islamist organizations on the ground in Libya? Is there really a credible connection to al-Qaeda, or is it merely a matter of a single man with previous associations with that organization having a hand in the planning? And, like any other questionable situation in the Federal Government, how high does it really go? That last one is very important, primarily because Obama detractors have a horrible habit of giving him far too much credit when it comes to just about everything. Bluntly, he’s too much of an amateur in foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, to personally manage being puppetmaster on something like this. The Islam apologist policies he follows are really his undoing in the region – radical Muslims respect him less than the right-wing in the U.S. does because of it. The bottom line is that we are nowhere near the end of this one, if there is even one person determined to stay the course, and figure out exactly what happened. And it will be interesting to see what the truth really is.

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

I Know Who Said to Take Out God and Jerusalem from the DNC Platform

Ok. So I don’t exactly know, but I can offer an educated guess. Before we get into that, a little background is necessary.

DonkeyHotey (CC)


Let’s go back to 2003. Back then, James Moore was starting his own little cottage industry on the back of Karl Rove. That “other-Moore” released a couple books, and one was made into a movie – “Bush’s Brain.” Of course, the whole marketing scheme was that George W. Bush couldn’t possibly be smart enough to do it all by himself. Rove was the puppet-master, and he was ruthless political operator manipulating the hapless Bush. Liberals ate this up with relish, and for at least a little while, they actually knew who Rove was (now, they apparently don’t, outside the Beltway at least.) Why was this idea so popular? Well, Bush did it to himself, in some ways. There just had to be someone very smart helping him along the way. How else could a former frat-boy make it to 1600, daddy being a previous resident notwithstanding?

Just a year later, Barack Obama comes on the national scene, at that year’s DNC convention. Of course this charismatic man was being groomed to run for the presidency. Everyone knew it, just as we can easily predict the rising stars in the GOP today. But how did Obama get there, and more importantly, how did he get into the White House? We all looked at Bush’s pedigree, and the left immediately leaped on any perceived deficiencies they could, leaving a huge market for Moore’s books on the topic. But, that was just a couple years into Bush’s first term. Only now are the Republicans starting to really delve into the past of the elusive Obama. Hopefully, it’s not “too little, too late.”

Instead of Moore, there’s Richard Miniter, and his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him. I humbly suggest that it was no coincidence that the phrase “leading from behind” was used more than once on the floor of the RNC convention, by no less than Condi Rice, for one. This book suggests that there isn’t just one Rove in the background pulling strings in the current administration, but no less than three. That is, if you are only going to count the women.

In turns, Obama was (and still is) influenced highly by certain women in his life. That list includes Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett. While both Michelle and Pelosi obviously have some sway in Obama’s world all the time, admittedly Pelosi’s real time of influence was during the debates and passage of the Healthcare Reform Act. No one is likely to forget her infamous “we’ve got to pass it to know what’s in it” plea, and Miniter actually contends that we should be referring to that legislation as “Pelosi-Care,” not Obamacare, to give credit where it is actually due. As for the current debacle with the platform, it’s highly unlikely that either Michelle or Pelosi would have suggested such a thing as removing reference to God and Jerusalem.

So, that leaves Hillary Clinton and Valerie Jarrett to consider. Sure, it’s possible that both of these women had a hand in this, for different reasons. While all the Dems have been making hay about Bill Clinton’s speech at the convention, I’ve been quietly considering Romney’s response to it. It really wasn’t a very good speech for Obama. If nothing else, Bill Clinton is good at smiling while delivering an obscure insult. It could be argued that is precisely what that speech was. Does anyone really think that Bill forgot about Reagan’s inheritance from Carter, and what he did with it? If you do, you must be a Democrat. So yes, there is a strong argument for Hillary suggesting, or at least supporting, the removal of the reference to God and Jerusalem in the Democratic Platform. Or you could buy into Alan Dershowitz’s contention that it’s the result of “rogue elements”. Not very convincing, however, it is interesting to consider Dershowitz’s opinion on Hamas.

And that leaves Valerie Jarrett. She is arguably the one that conservatives should be calling “Obama’s Brain.” And just who is she, really? To hear it from the Obama’s, she’s a very old friend. Considering they met sometime in the 1990’s, it does make one wonder what it takes to become an “old friend.” Otherwise, Jarrett resides in Rove’s old office, and some might even say that she has greater access to and influence on Obama than Rove ever did with Bush. And, by all accounts, Jarrett is a radical left-wing political player, and probably the biggest proponent of secularism in the current administration. Miniter’s book does cover the history of Jarrett and the Obama’s such as can be gleaned from the few that are willing to talk about her. Of course, it’s not likely anyone will get many statements on her going forward, and certainly not from anyone like Robert Gibbs, who she probably caused to end up outside the White House.

So, my bet is on Valerie Jarrett being the culprit, and there is no way it was a typo. And, like many other mistakes in this administration, there never was any intention for there to be a real vote on the issue on the floor of the convention. The fact that the delegates actually spoke their minds had to be highly annoying to Obama. After all, the only deity he wants to see people worshiping is him, right?

When in Doubt – Call in Al Gore

Now, bear in mind that the Dems will undoubtedly claim that Al Gore came out on this all by himself, without any prompting from them. Could actually be the truth. But, other than a really massive grudge against America for 2000, why would Gore bother bringing this up now?

simone.brunozzi (CC)


Abolishing the Electoral College system is brought up from time to time. It’s usually dismissed out of hand, and should be this time. The only useful thing to consider here is the fact that Gore is bringing it up at a point when it makes absolutely no sense – not that he’s known for making sense, that is.

So, if we’re running on the premise that there is some prompting from the Dems here, what does that mean about their strategy going forward? Yes, they will be going for whatever they can to keep the spotlight off the economy, and Obama’s massive failures in general. But, does this also mean that the Obama camp might be thinking that their only hope is to rely on the popular vote?

It’s no secret that the Obama camp is in near panic mode, begging for money at least once daily via email, and any other way it can. And then there’s the situation with Hillary Clinton. In case you missed it, she’s going to the Cook Islands for a very important conference with a bunch of nominal nations that rely heavily on the U.S. for many things – like trade – but rarely show up in the headlines here unless there’s some sort of atrocity or natural disaster there. Yep, that’s MUCH more important than the DNC next week! Needless to say, people aren’t even bothering to whisper that this is probably to protect Hillary as much as possible from Obama fallout in 2016 – they’re shouting it from the rooftops at this point.

So what’s a floundering presidential campaign to do when it can’t manage to fill venues for its “coming out party”? Well, it could invite 20,000 Muslims. Why not? It’s not like the folks of Charlotte weren’t already annoyed with the Dem party endorsing gay marriage – sure, they didn’t vote to make such unions absolutely illegal, right?

If you’re getting lost here, my point is that the Obama camp has sunk so low at this point, throwing Al Gore in the mix couldn’t possibly make it worse, could it? I think maybe we should ask Clint Eastwood’s version of Obama on that one – at least we’ll get a more intelligent answer! But, here’s to Al Gore, for bringing up yet another non-issue to distract everyone. Next!

Grasping at Energy Straws

In February 2012 New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer called upon Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to request Saudi Arabia increase their oil production to make up for potential disruptions in the world’s oil supply resulting from Iranian saber-rattling. Schumer’s unhidden rationale was that such a pledge from the Saudis would drive down gasoline prices in America

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/216057-schumer-saudi-arabis-plan-to-increae-oil-output-will-lower-gas-prices

This ill-advised strategy was clearly politically driven. While the idea of higher gasoline prices, and the accompanying increase in the price of gas dependent goods and services is consistently rejected by average Americans, this is a blatantly partisan call for a short-term fix. This temporary, non-solution, suggested in order to perpetuate the false narrative that America’s economy is improving thanks to “progressive” policy decisions does absolutely nothing to reduce America’s dependency on foreign oil. Quite to the contrary, it exacerbates it.

On March 15, 2012 Reuters reported that during British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent trip to the U.S. the current White House occupant proposed releasing emergency oil reserves as a way to reduce world oil prices.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/uk-obama-energy-spr-idUKBRE82E00U20120315

Were the White House to make such a decision, it would be yet another desperate attempt to lower gas prices by whatever means possible. Tapping into the emergency oil reserves is a bad idea. Those reserves are there for use during a pressing national emergency. Tapping in to them every time there’s an increase in the price of a barrel of oil is both gross mismanagement and a misguided misapplication of the stockpile. Not only will the reserves need to be replenished with what might well turn out to be more expensive oil, tapping into them now does nothing to address the long-term problem.

“progressives” continue to grasp at short-term straws frantically trying to make themselves look good in the eyes of low information, sound bite voters. They’re willing to do whatever it takes to win the 2012 election, even if decisions made to make themselves look good in the short term are not sound long term solutions. As radical “progressive” political strategist and leftist hero Saul Alinsky dictated: the ends justify the means.

In the interest of national security and job creation, the United States should put Americans back to work delivering American energy to Americans. This is the best way for America to become energy independent while boosting the economy. Trying to force “green energy” on America’s economy overnight will only contribute to the collapse of that economy. Evidence: Spain’s troubled financial situation and extremely high unemployment.

America doesn’t need a broken economy. America doesn’t need short-term price fixes driven by partisan political decisions. America needs and deserves sound, long term solutions that will result in energy independence.

Drill here. Drill now.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/grasping-at-energy-straws/

Clinton's State Department to discredit Russian elections?

NEW YORK, January 31, 2012 — Anthony T. Salvia, Director of the American Institute in Ukraine, and consultant in international public advocacy and governmental affairs, has said that Vladimir Putin is still the most popular politician in Russia.

He said: “If the Russian presidential election were held next week, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin would likely win with 52-58% of the popular vote-some 20 points fewer than the result he achieved in 2004, but still representing broad popular support in line with Western standards of electoral success. If his position were to slip between then and March 4th, and he were to receive less than 50% of the vote, he would find himself in a run-off, most likely with Communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov, over whom he would certainly prevail.

“So says Valery Fyodorov, general director of VTsIOM, one of Russia’s leading public opinion research organizations. He recently presented detailed polling results to an international conference organized by the Mitteleuropa Initiative in Vienna.

“He said a greater danger for Putin than Zyuganov would be the inevitable efforts of opposition forces to de-legitimize his election-which they will do even if the process is conducted freely and fairly.

“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provoked Moscow’s ire when she labeled the Russian State Duma elections of last December 4th “neither free nor fair,” demanding that each and every instance of fraud be investigated.

“Fyodorov contradicted this narrative. He told your correspondent that while vote fraud certainly did take place, it did not do so on such a scale as to alter the results, which corresponded broadly to exit and pre-election polling nationwide. Nevertheless, the opposition-i.e., the disaffected members of the urban middle class, the liberal intelligentsia, Communists and Russian nationalists who took to the streets to protest electoral chicanery- as well as much of the Western media and some leading Western politicians, have sought to de-legitimize the Duma elections, and, thereby, the Russian government.

“More of the same can be expected in the aftermath of the presidential vote on March 4th.

“Some opposition forces will surely seek to portray any decline in Putin’s percentage of the vote since the last time he ran (certain to happen), a lower rate of voter participation (as those who feel there is no acceptable alternative to Putin stay home), and an upsurge in support for the parties of the left, including the Communist Party (likely in view of their strong showing in the State Duma elections of last December, although as of this writing, Putin is rising in the polls) as popular disavowal of Putin. For good measure, they will allege voter fraud-whether or not it took place-in an effort to discredit and de-legitimize Putin and the Russian system generally.

“Secretary Clinton and her merry band of humanitarian interventionists at Foggy Bottom will be only too happy to egg them on. They will be aided and abetted by the Republican foreign policy establishment, which shares Mrs. Clinton’s antipathy to Putin-not because, in their view, he is not a democrat (they could not care less about that), but because he dares to resist Washington’s efforts to turn Russia into a nominally independent satellite by standing up for Russia’s legitimate national interests.”

About the Conduct of Our Soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan

I am submitting this in response to the comments about the Marines who were video taped pissing on dead Taliban members. This is a post I first wrote on the original Patriot Action Network site on October 19, 2010 at 3:40 a.m. It was originally addressed to some who criticized me and others for advocating working through the political system to solve our political problems. They were calling me and others names because we were, and are, working hard to prevent a war here in America. Although written for a different subject matter then, it is very appropriate in the context of the story of our Marines pissing on dead Taliban.

This is addressed to anyone who feels they have a right to criticize our military people fighting the battles day in and day out, and especially directed to the lame politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D. C.

I am writing this in response to Gerald, Gary, Jaymes, and others of like mind. You posted comments that denigrate the attitudes of me and Dave Ruhoff about our ideas of using peaceful means to take our country back from the leftists who now run our government. I don’t know any of you and never saw your names before this discussion. I have some thoughts for you in regards to your comments about “sunshine patriots” and “collaborators”. If anyone has a weak stomach do not read this. It is not vulgar but is rather graphic to make a point I think is very important to those who think violence is the answer to our woes. If you have ever been in combat you should be ashamed of yourselves. If not, you shouldn’t be spouting the way you did. I went to bed but could not sleep and hope that expressing my thoughts will clear my head and allow me to sleep, and at the same time, give some of you something to reflect upon.

Before thinking ill of us, go enlist in the Army or Marine Corp. Volunteer for combat as an infantry soldier. Spend a couple of years in the mountains of Afghanistan. Spend every day with the threat of death at your elbow. Take that 100 pound rucksack and carry it until your shoulders ache from the load. Walk until you hips, legs, ankles, and feet cry out in pain. Go until you think you can’t walk any more and then keep on going. Go experience the freezing cold, the snow, the rain, the mud. Volunteer to be the point man. Walk along terrain that is so slippery you can barely sand up. And while you are doing this, be on constant alert for snipers, booby traps, or the ambush waiting around the next bend, past the next tree, or past the next boulder. Watch a 180 degree arc side to side and from ground level to the tops of trees, rocks, ridges, etc. for the ambush that could come at any second without warning, just the sudden burst from a grenade, mortar, RPG, or machine gun. Watch east step you take because the rock you kick might have a live grenade under it, or a trip wire, waiting for some poor unsuspecting grunt to kick it and have his legs blown off, or worse.

Lay there at night among the rocks, too tired and scared to sleep, every noise you hear being the chance of an enemy sneaking up to slit your throat. Experience the ambush, bullets tearing the ground around you. See the guy next to you get hit and feel his blood splatter all over you. Feel the relief, and the guilt, when your first thought is “I am okay, thank God it wasn’t me” as he lays there bleeding to death because you can’t quite firing long enough to help him as you are outnumbered 50-1.

Experience the fear of hand to hand combat, you with your knife and the enemy with his. Feel the pain as his knife slashes at your body. Feel your knife plunge into his sternum or stomach and the sensation as it stops when the hilt hits and his blood begins to run along your hand. Or hear the hissing of an enemy hand grenade a split second before it explodes, hurling hot metal into your body and the concussion knocking you to the ground. Feel the pain and fear as you lay there, semi-conscious and unable to defend yourself as enemy soldiers run past you, hoping they don’t stick you with a bayonet or pump a few rounds into you for good measure.

Or feel the sensation of being shot, the hot flash of pain and the feeling of being hit by a baseball bat swung by a Major League slugger. Live like this day in and day out for a year or two. Then come talk to me about “sunshine patriots”. Then come talk to me about “collaborators”. Then come talk to me about “weak willed people only willing to write letters or vote”.

Before judging people like Dave and me, walk a mile in my shoes and see if you can come up with a better plan. See if you can understand why pounding the pavement to get out the vote and writing letters to elected officials to get your point across and accomplish your goals is acceptable. My apologies to those who find this disturbing. My goal here is to; hopefully, give those who are looking for a war something to think about. How about we try it my way? America is worth it to me.

God Bless America.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 20, 2012

Rick Perry and the Truth About Turkey

Governor Rick Perry has drawn quite a bit of criticism for his recent remarks regarding the country of Turkey during the Fox news/WSJ SC GOP debate on Tuesday night. When asked about his plans for cutting all U.S. foreign aid to zero,and whether Turkey still belongs in NATO, Perry responded as follows: “Obviously, when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes — not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it,” he said.

Note that Perry states in his answer that Turkey is “being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.” He didn’t call them terrorists or identify any certain individuals as terrorists, but instead stated that many people would perceive the rulers of Turkey to be Islamic terrorists. So does Governor Perry’s statement carry any weight? Yes it does, and there are plenty of facts to back it up, which may be found by doing some very basic research on the subject of Turkey.

While the U.S. State dept, which is currently run by Hillary Clinton, has distanced itself from Perry’s statement, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs came out with a very U.S. DNC-type statement in which they attacked Perry’s credibility, as opposed to putting up any facts to denounce his statement. “Those individuals who are candidates for positions requiring responsibility such as the U.S. presidency are expected to be more knowledgeable on global affairs and more careful in their statements,” the ministry said in a statement. “Turkey became a member of NATO when the governor was just 2 years old. … The U.S. has no time to lose with such candidates who do not even know America’s allies.” So just because Governor Perry was two years old when Turkey joined NATO., we are led to believe that he could not possibly know anything about the country of Turkey, and their eligibility for NATO admittance. With the Muslim brotherhood surging into power within Egypt due to the recent uprisings across the region, we see the political climate changing at a rapid pace today. The anti-American, anti-Israeli sentiment is at a dangerous level throughout the Middle East and North Africa today. Governor Perry obviously wasn’t referring to the Turkey of 50 years ago when he made his statement.

For some factual history of the examples of historic Turkish genocide, mainly aimed at wiping out Christians in the region, see this article. Millions of people were murdered or fled religious persecution by the Young Turks of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey’s government has shown the propensity to deny those facts, even today. And recently, William Dalrymple penned “Christians Fleeing the Middle East’ in which he wrote, that Christianity is suffering “a devastating decline in the land of its birth.” While today’s Turkey proclaims itself to be a Republic, it appears to be anything but a free Republic when we read about the Turkish-Muslim Persecution of Christians.

Fast forward to today. In this Fox News article, we see that recently the Turkish government has expelled the Israeli Ambassador, that Turkey’s [lack of] freedom of the press currently resembles that of Russia, and that Turkish authorities have recently met with Hamas leaders. Add to that information the reports that violence against women are up some 1400%, (2002-2009) and that the director of the Turkish Research Program, Mr. Capaptay, wrote an essay that stated that the Turkish government has “neutered domestic checks and balances” since 2002, a “consolidation of power” that could have consequences for its relationship with the U.S. He noted that Turkish officials have demonized Western nations, and polls show the Turkish people mostly do not view the U.S. Favorably. To Governor Perry’s credit, he stands by his statements, as he recently stated, “When you see the number of actions against your citizens that we would consider to be terrorist acts, I stand by my statement,” Perry said. “You need to be putting protections in place for your citizens if you’re seeing those types of attacks against, particularly, well, particularly females. That is particularly heinous from my perspective.”

Finally, some pundits and assorted academics have falsely argued that Turkey does not currently receive and U.S. Foreign aid, in another attempt to discredit Perry’s statements. Apparently, the very same government-paid propagandist who wrote the essay mentioned above, Mr. Capaptay of the “Turkish Research Program” are incapable of telling the truth and doing proper research to back up statements, such as the following: “First, Turkey does not receive U.S. foreign aid. Some time in the 1980s it was phased out, so this is not your mother’s Turkey,” U.S. Aid to Turkey has been “phased out” since 1980? Not according to the U.S. Government it hasn’t, as seen here. That shows Turkey receiving $5.4 million from the U.S. In 2011 and another $5.6 million slated to be given to them in 2012. Keep in mind that those figures are only for “base appropriations.” For instance, in FY 2009, the U.S. Government gave Turkey $7 million tax dollars for.. “economic development.” Mr. Capaptay would be advised to be careful with his own “inaccurate statements” as per his condescending statement to governor Perry concerning U.S. cash being given to Turkey today.

In conclusion, Governor Perry is 100% correct in demanding that the U.S. reset all foreign aid back to zero, reevaluate each case, and then reestablish the programs based on protecting American interests and preventing U.S. tax dollars from funding anti-American regimes. And yes, that should include Islamic-terrorist supporting governments and anyone else caught promoting and/or aiding them. Why in the world does the United States government continue to dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to hostile countries out to destroy America?

Rep. Issa: Fast and Furious Just A “Dumb Program”

In a Washington Times article on Friday, December 2, 2011, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca) stated that Eric Holder did not order Operation Fast & Furious/Gunrunner. Issa declares that:

“Fast and Furious was not the first federal investigation in which “bad people are allowed to continue to do bad things in the name of going after bad people.”

Once again I find myself quoting the duck in the AFLAC commercial- HUH???????????

What a bunch of double-talking nonsense. This reminds me of an episode of the television series “MASH”, when Frank Burns comes out with a typical moronic statement of “it’s nice to be nice to the nice”. Issa must be a big fan of the character of that series because he certainly mimics the Burns character. Issa has also declined to join in the chorus of Republicans calling for Holder’s resignation or firing because his committee had not “reached all the conclusions that are appropriate in this investigation.”. Well isn’t that just special? They have been “looking into” this for a year and have found nothing that comes to the level of resignation or firing? I certainly have found enough justification in my perusal of this matter to put Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Kenneth Melson in prison for life.

Issa continued with a statement that makes we wonder how the family of Agent Terry feels knowing that the man in charge of investigating their loved one’s death thinks of him as “collateral damage”. I am not related, but I find this statement reprehensible.

“It is about a failure that seems to be pervasive within Justice that investigations play fast and loose with the expectations of what is right or wrong when it comes to what I am going to call collateral damage.”

I wrote Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley back in June asking if they would really do what is needed or if they would make a joke out of this procedure. Unfortunately, Issa has done as I expected and made a mockery, once again, of Congressional hearings into anything. This has been a dog and pony show from the beginning, as I expected it to be. Here is the letter I wrote:

Sen. Grassley, Rep. Issa, June 3, 2011

I am writing about the controversy over the BAFTE and “Project Gunrunner”. I have discovered quite a lot about this operation in my research. I have read about the illegal activities and the deaths involved, including that of Border patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 10, 2010 in a remote area near Nogales, Arizona. I don’t know how much information you have on this so I will let you know what I know and hope that, as the members of Congress investigating this matter, you have more information than I have. The gun dealers involved in this reported the suspected straw purchases to the BAFTE, as required by federal law, and were told to let them walk so the guns could be traced to crimes in Mexico. The guns were never traced and this was only discovered because one of the guns that resulted in the death of Agent Terry was left at the scene of the shootout with the border patrol agents.

Hillary Clinton runs all over the world decrying the “gun show loophole” and claiming that guns bought at gun shows and dealers like the ones in Arizona are the cause of the violence in Mexico. We all know that this is a huge lie to impose their brand of Marxist tyranny upon We the People of the United States of America. I believe the number she claims is 90% of the guns used in crimes come from gun dealers in the United States. You and I know, as does Hillary, that this is an absolute lie but she spouts it anyway.
According to Darren Gil, the agency’s attaché in Mexico City, he was not informed of this operation nor was anyone in the Mexican government. Mr. Gil was forced to resign and claims that the authority for this operation came from the BATFE director and the Justice Department, headed by Eric Holder. When Mr. Gil found out about an unusually high number of guns captured by Mexican authorities being traced back to Phoenix, he asked for information. He told CBS in an interview that the meetings in which he challenged his superiors about the operation turned into shouting matches and he was instructed to continue to keep his Mexican counterparts in the dark about the operation.

BATFE agent John Dodson was also attempting to use the “whistleblower” statutes to reveal this illegal operation but was thwarted by a lack of response from superiors who refused to answer e-mails and telephone calls. Agent Dodson told CBS that his superiors told him that “if they were going to make omelets that they had to break some eggs”. It is a shame that one of those “eggs” that had to be broken was Brian Terry. All the time this was going on the administration was using the violence in Mexico as an excuse to attempt to subvert the 2nd Amendment and restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms, in violation of the Constitution.

Barak Obama and Eric Holder both claim to be ignorant of this operation but are they not responsible for the actions of the bureaucrats that they appoint to office? I believe they not only knew about this operation but also either conceived it or approved it. This action rises to the level of conspiracy to violate numerous laws, violations that would land me a very long prison sentence if I committed them. Am I to assume that it is permissible for the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of the BATFE to enter into a conspiracy to violate firearms laws and the Constitution? If I am bound by these laws certainly the top law enforcement officer of the nation and his boss, the president, should be subject to these same laws.

I ask you to do your duty as the members of Congress investigating this matter to file charges and order the arrest of Barak Obama, Eric Holder, and the Director of the BATFE Kenneth Melson for murder in the death of Agent Terry, conspiracy to violate firearms laws, conspiracy to cover up this illegal action, and treason for conspiracy to intentionally violate the provisions of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. As a law abiding citizen of the United States, I cannot stand by and allow the very highest officers in this nation to flagrantly violate the law, and neither can you.

The continued obfuscation and cover-up of this operation is a matter of grave concern to all people who wish to live in a free Republic. If these men are allowed to escape justice for their actions what does that say about the rule of law in our land? What does it say to people like me who obey the law and do our best to make this country great? If this goes unpunished does it mean that I can do as I wish and ignore any law that is inconvenient to me? That seems to be what Obama, Holder, Melson, and others have done, ignore the very law they swore to uphold. What kind of example does that set for others if they are above the law and are allowed to do as they please because they are better than I?

I guess my question to you is will you do what is called for by law or will you sit around and wring your hands and do nothing? Will you do your duty as officers of the federal government to uphold the law and the Constitution or will you sit back and hold hearings that gain no information, and let this slide so as to not make waves? Do you have the courage to stand on law and order or will you turn a blind eye to evil and corruption? The whole nation is looking for elected officials who will stand by their oath of office and represent the Constitution and We the People of the United States of America, a quality that seems to be in very short supply these days. Will you be the ones we are looking for to show true leadership and integrity or will you be another cog in the wheel of that corruption? I know members of Congress aren’t very good at answering letters but I would very much appreciate an answer to this one. I think the American people deserve an answer to the questions I have posed here. Are you truly servants of the people?

I am sending this letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Dan Boren, Rep. John Boehner, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. Darrell Issa.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
In God We Trust,
Bob Russell
Claremore, Ok.

Isn’t this what we have come to expect from Congress? Isn’t this the normal hand wringing that ends in no action? Isn’t this the usual result of Republican “investigations” by any committee of Congress? The Constitution and the laws based upon it are ignored time and again by members of our government. They do as they wish and ignore the pleas of We the People to act in accordance with the laws of the land. I included the letter I wrote to Darrell Issa and Charles Grassley in this article to let people know that this result of the “investigation” was anticipated, and feared, from the outset. I also included the names of those in Congress that received copies of my letter. To date the only response I have received is from Sen. Coburn.

We the People are not being represented in Washington D. C., by either party. They are so busy playing fast and loose with the truth, with justice, and with the Constitution, that I fear nothing will ever be done to clean up the swamp of corruption that is our federal government. All of them are real good at running to the closest television camera or microphone to bleat out their “outrage” at what has happened, but none of them actually do anything to solve the problems. As I mentioned in a recent article, the Democrat and Republican Parties are two wings of the same bird, and have been giving We the People the bird for much too long.

The game plan in the federal government, and lately in the State of Oklahoma government, is to talk tough but do nothing. Teddy Roosevelt said, “walk softly but carry a big stick”. Today the motto of elected people is to “talk big but do nothing”. Neither party has any desire to clean up the evil of government. They are more interested in ruling than governing. We the People are merely pawns in their game of power and have no meaning to either political party other than as subjects. While the members of Congress, bureaucrats, and various presidential administrations sit on their thrones and postulate, our nation and our freedom go down the sewer.

This announcement by Issa is more proof that those in charge in Washington D. C. have no regard for those who put them there. Members of Congress, bureaucrats, and members of presidential administrations are omnipotent and beyond being held responsible for what they do. The dog and pony shows will go on until We the People revolt and make major changes in government. As long as we continue to elect people based on party affiliation we will continue to see the same results.

George Washington warned us about political parties in his farewell address. The political party has become an entity unto itself, with self-preservation being the mind-set of both parties. Unless we remove the Republican Party as the party we look to for truth, justice, and the American way, we are doomed. The Democrat Party has been completely taken over by the Marxists and Communists, and those who were run out of that party are now in charge of the Republican Party. We the People have no voice in Washington, and won’t unless we unite against the “ruling class” that controls both political parties.

We are losing our freedom because too many are willing to compromise that freedom and vote for “anyone but Obama” as the latest in the trend of voter cowardice and the herd mentality. Choosing the “lesser of two evils” will never be the answer to the dangers faced by the United States of America. The only way for our way of life, our liberty, to survive is to have the courage to stand for our guiding principles and stop giving in to the fear mongering attitude of voting for whoever the Republican establishment gives us to vote for. As long as they know we have no other options nothing will change. Until the voters stand up and vote for the one “who has no chance to win” we will continue to see our freedom sold to the highest bidder.

The announcement by Issa is one more example of “good old boy” politics. They are a fraternity, all of them, and We the People are the nerds who cannot be trusted with a voice in the future of our nation. I can only imagine how disappointed our founding fathers would be in what our nation has become.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
December 6, 2011

« Older Entries Recent Entries »