I have never seen anything like this! The United States of America now has a President who not only does not know what leadership is, but does not know much of anything at all that goes on in his administration.
Just in recent months, our president stated he did not know who attacked our consulate in Benghazi, does not know who gave the order to "stand down", and does not know who gave Susan Rice her talking points. And just since Friday, he has stated he knew nothing about the IRS breaking federal law by targeting conservatives for political purposes, and he knows nothing about the Justice Department seizing phone records from the Associated Press without explanation.
I gotta ask - if, as the liberals claim, Obama is SO intelligent, why is it he knows NOTHING of what goes on in his own administration, or even in the White House?
There are only two possibilities - either Obama and his administration are completely corrupt, or they are completely incompetent. But in either case, they certainly should not be in any position of power higher than that of Road Kill Clean-Up Crew.
I do not believe Obama and his minions are incompetent. I think they are typical, corrupt Chicago thugs.
/
Monday, May 13, 2013
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Benghazi Cover-Up - WHY?
All who are familiar with the inconsistencies and deceptions from the Obama Administration concerning the terrorist attack on our Consulate in Benghazi fully understand that there has been a massive, concerted effort to cover it up. What no one seems to know is WHY?
While there may be some truth in the theory that the attack occured because our government was covertly sending Libyan arms to Syria and got caught, that would be one reason for a cover-up. But regardless of the reason for the attack, there is a certain other reason for a cover-up.
Consider that Obama snatched the presidency from Hillary Clinton. Now consider that, to appease the powerful Clintons and to get them to work with Obama, the administration makes a deal with them - they would make Hillary Secretary of State, so that she could build up her resume with some major foreign policy experience so she would have an easy time winning the White House in 2016. Consider, too, that the Democrat party does not have ANYONE who could beat Hillary in 2016.
So what we now have is an administration dedicated to keeping control of America in 2016 by ensuring the election of Clinton.
But Clinton screwed up, BIG time, with Benghazi. She refused to send the support and help that the Ambassador repeatedly requested. She ignored the real threat. And between them, Clinton and Obama were asleep at the wheel when the "call came in at 3:00 am." And our people died.
It would immediately be seen as a devastating blow to both the administration and the Democrat's chances of winning the White House in 2016 if the people got even a hint that Hillary screwed up so badly, and that Obama did nothing to help our people who were under attack.
And almost before the sun arose next morning, Susan Rice was lying on all 5 major morning shows, and since then the administration has done everything in its power to sweep this under the rug. Survivors were threatened into silence. A stupid video no one ever saw was blamed. Lie after lie was invented and trotted out, hoping to "wait out the clock." And the liberal media acted in collusion with the administration, keeping the truth from the people.
We may not be certain as to why the consulate was attacked, but I am 100% certain as to why it was covered up so aggressively.
/
While there may be some truth in the theory that the attack occured because our government was covertly sending Libyan arms to Syria and got caught, that would be one reason for a cover-up. But regardless of the reason for the attack, there is a certain other reason for a cover-up.
Consider that Obama snatched the presidency from Hillary Clinton. Now consider that, to appease the powerful Clintons and to get them to work with Obama, the administration makes a deal with them - they would make Hillary Secretary of State, so that she could build up her resume with some major foreign policy experience so she would have an easy time winning the White House in 2016. Consider, too, that the Democrat party does not have ANYONE who could beat Hillary in 2016.
So what we now have is an administration dedicated to keeping control of America in 2016 by ensuring the election of Clinton.
But Clinton screwed up, BIG time, with Benghazi. She refused to send the support and help that the Ambassador repeatedly requested. She ignored the real threat. And between them, Clinton and Obama were asleep at the wheel when the "call came in at 3:00 am." And our people died.
It would immediately be seen as a devastating blow to both the administration and the Democrat's chances of winning the White House in 2016 if the people got even a hint that Hillary screwed up so badly, and that Obama did nothing to help our people who were under attack.
And almost before the sun arose next morning, Susan Rice was lying on all 5 major morning shows, and since then the administration has done everything in its power to sweep this under the rug. Survivors were threatened into silence. A stupid video no one ever saw was blamed. Lie after lie was invented and trotted out, hoping to "wait out the clock." And the liberal media acted in collusion with the administration, keeping the truth from the people.
We may not be certain as to why the consulate was attacked, but I am 100% certain as to why it was covered up so aggressively.
/
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Traitors In Our Midst?
The FBI was getting valuable information from the Boston Bomber when a judge and attorney UNEXPECTEDLY showed up, read him his Miranda Rights, whereupon the suspect immediately stopped talking to the FBI.
The FBI was furious, and stunned to have the judge show up unannounced and Mirandize the suspect. No one knows who sent the judge; who it was that gave the order to shut the suspect up (and why).
When you consider that Eric Holder's DOJ did the same thing with the "shoe bomber", preventing our intelligence people from getting information, I think you can safely assume that again the DOJ stepped in to prevent us from getting important intel. Why would they do that? What is it they do not want us to know? Why would they jeopardize national security that way?
If it is true that someone in the administration sent the judge, then it borders on treason. And it is coming from the top.
The judge should be subpoened to testify before Congress as to who sent her, and those responsible should be impeached at the very least.
In case you missed it, hours after the bombing, and without any information at all, Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security stated "there was no foreign involvement", even though one of the suspects travelled to Russia, spent 7 months there in a VERY rough, Muslim area, and returned prepared to kill innocent people.
You would have to be the highest form of naive fool to believe anything this administration tells us.
/
The FBI was furious, and stunned to have the judge show up unannounced and Mirandize the suspect. No one knows who sent the judge; who it was that gave the order to shut the suspect up (and why).
When you consider that Eric Holder's DOJ did the same thing with the "shoe bomber", preventing our intelligence people from getting information, I think you can safely assume that again the DOJ stepped in to prevent us from getting important intel. Why would they do that? What is it they do not want us to know? Why would they jeopardize national security that way?
If it is true that someone in the administration sent the judge, then it borders on treason. And it is coming from the top.
The judge should be subpoened to testify before Congress as to who sent her, and those responsible should be impeached at the very least.
In case you missed it, hours after the bombing, and without any information at all, Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security stated "there was no foreign involvement", even though one of the suspects travelled to Russia, spent 7 months there in a VERY rough, Muslim area, and returned prepared to kill innocent people.
You would have to be the highest form of naive fool to believe anything this administration tells us.
/
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Why Does The Ammo Shortage Continue?
At first, I did not "get it". While it was easy to understand why ammo came to be in short supply (Homeland Security buying it all up, to render our weapons useless), I could not understand why it STAYED in short supply. After all, as a businessman, I can tell you that when the demand for my product goes up, I manufacture more product so as to cash in on the demand.
But the ammo companies are not doing that. Why?
Frankly, I can only think of one reason - they want to create such a drought that people will pay anything to get ammo. I believe the ammo companies see this as an opportunity to jack up prices - substantially.
In fact, in looking online, people who have an abundance of previously purchased ammo are selling it at a 400% markup. A box of 50 rounds of .22 long rifle rimfires, normally selling for about $5-$8 a box are now selling for a minimum of $20.
First, Homeland Security rips us off by taking away all the ammo. And now it appears the ammo manufacturers are also planning to rip us off.
For the sake and safety of the country and its citizens, and to preserve the intent of the Constitution, Congress should make a law that ammunition manufacturers cannot contract out any more than 50% of their production to government agencies, and that at least 50% of production should be made available to the private citizenry.
Either that, or the NRA should consider building an ammunitions factory and produce ammo for the citizens of this great nation, that they may protect themselves from ALL who would harm them.
/
But the ammo companies are not doing that. Why?
Frankly, I can only think of one reason - they want to create such a drought that people will pay anything to get ammo. I believe the ammo companies see this as an opportunity to jack up prices - substantially.
In fact, in looking online, people who have an abundance of previously purchased ammo are selling it at a 400% markup. A box of 50 rounds of .22 long rifle rimfires, normally selling for about $5-$8 a box are now selling for a minimum of $20.
First, Homeland Security rips us off by taking away all the ammo. And now it appears the ammo manufacturers are also planning to rip us off.
For the sake and safety of the country and its citizens, and to preserve the intent of the Constitution, Congress should make a law that ammunition manufacturers cannot contract out any more than 50% of their production to government agencies, and that at least 50% of production should be made available to the private citizenry.
Either that, or the NRA should consider building an ammunitions factory and produce ammo for the citizens of this great nation, that they may protect themselves from ALL who would harm them.
/
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Flying The Flag At Half-Mast
President Obama has ordered flags be flown at half-mast through 4/20, in honor of the three citizens who perished in the bombing at the Boston Marathon. For those of you who know me by now, I'm sure you must realize...
...I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT!
Not that I don't care about those victims, but flying our colors at half-mast is supposed to be an honor reserved for heads of state, heroes etc. So, I had to ask myself - as should you - why on Earth has the president ordered this?
I do not doubt he cares. But why this time? Why for three people killed in Boston by a bomb while watching the Marathon, but not for three people killed in Chicago by stray gangland bullets while watching "The Apprentice"? What is the difference?
When you consider that thousands of American soldiers, true heroes who gave their lives fighting for the flag in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and not once did the president order the flag be flown at half-mast for any of them. So again I ask - why this time? For those three individuals?
And the answer is clear - there is only one difference - the news coverage. The press on the bombing is almost fanatical, non-stop coverage. And as Axelrod once told the Democratic party, "never let a crisis go to waste."
Obama has bitten off a bit of the news coverage, and has succeeded in making himself look like a caring person.
Yes, he cares. But why not for the Chicago shooting victims? Because he knows if he ordered half-mast for those Chicago victims, or even for each soldier that dies, he would be seen as frivolous.
When news coverage is huge. Obama is there, getting his mug in front of the cameras.
There are no cameras on those shootings in Chicago...
/
...I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT!
Not that I don't care about those victims, but flying our colors at half-mast is supposed to be an honor reserved for heads of state, heroes etc. So, I had to ask myself - as should you - why on Earth has the president ordered this?
I do not doubt he cares. But why this time? Why for three people killed in Boston by a bomb while watching the Marathon, but not for three people killed in Chicago by stray gangland bullets while watching "The Apprentice"? What is the difference?
When you consider that thousands of American soldiers, true heroes who gave their lives fighting for the flag in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and not once did the president order the flag be flown at half-mast for any of them. So again I ask - why this time? For those three individuals?
And the answer is clear - there is only one difference - the news coverage. The press on the bombing is almost fanatical, non-stop coverage. And as Axelrod once told the Democratic party, "never let a crisis go to waste."
Obama has bitten off a bit of the news coverage, and has succeeded in making himself look like a caring person.
Yes, he cares. But why not for the Chicago shooting victims? Because he knows if he ordered half-mast for those Chicago victims, or even for each soldier that dies, he would be seen as frivolous.
When news coverage is huge. Obama is there, getting his mug in front of the cameras.
There are no cameras on those shootings in Chicago...
/
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Dishonest "Fuzzy Math" of Liberals
Any thinking person must be getting real tired of how liberals use "fuzzy math" to push their lies. Take "budget cuts" as an example. Obama and his mischievous minions say they are cutting the deficit, and cutting spending by billions. But the reality is that they are actually INCREASING spending and the debt. Here is an example:
Let's say everyone at your place of work gets paid $10 per hour. Next year, a $2.00 per hour raise is proposed. But the boss has to "cut" spending, so he decides to only give everyone a $1.00 per hour raise instead of $2.00.
A conservative would say that salaries increased by a dollar (which they did - from $10 to $11). But a liberal would say salaries were CUT by a dollar simply because the amount of a PROPOSED raise was cut.
The fact remains that salaries were NOT cut. Only the proposed raise was cut. The boss is still spending more, not less, on salaries. But not according to liberals.
This kind of fuzzy math is prevalent in Obama's new budget proposal. He stated that he has met Republicans halfway, with spending cuts that equal new tax revenues. But the facts show the opposite. The Obama budget, once the fuzzy math gimmicks are removed, shows:
1) an INCREASE in taxes of $1.1 TRILLION
2) an INCREASE in spending by nearly $1 TRILLION
3) An INCREASE in the debt to over $25 TRILLION in 10 years
This, in spite of the so-called "cuts", which are not cuts at all - they are merely reductions in proposed increases.
We, the People should force enactment of a law that makes it a crime for politicians to purposely and intentionally deceive the American people.
/
Let's say everyone at your place of work gets paid $10 per hour. Next year, a $2.00 per hour raise is proposed. But the boss has to "cut" spending, so he decides to only give everyone a $1.00 per hour raise instead of $2.00.
A conservative would say that salaries increased by a dollar (which they did - from $10 to $11). But a liberal would say salaries were CUT by a dollar simply because the amount of a PROPOSED raise was cut.
The fact remains that salaries were NOT cut. Only the proposed raise was cut. The boss is still spending more, not less, on salaries. But not according to liberals.
This kind of fuzzy math is prevalent in Obama's new budget proposal. He stated that he has met Republicans halfway, with spending cuts that equal new tax revenues. But the facts show the opposite. The Obama budget, once the fuzzy math gimmicks are removed, shows:
1) an INCREASE in taxes of $1.1 TRILLION
2) an INCREASE in spending by nearly $1 TRILLION
3) An INCREASE in the debt to over $25 TRILLION in 10 years
This, in spite of the so-called "cuts", which are not cuts at all - they are merely reductions in proposed increases.
We, the People should force enactment of a law that makes it a crime for politicians to purposely and intentionally deceive the American people.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)