Tag Archives: commander-in-chief

Governor Sarah Palin Lays Out Her Powerful Case AGAINST Attacking Syria

Sarah Palin Let Allah Sort it Out

So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” – Sarah Palin

By Gary P Jackson

On June 15, Governor Sarah Palin said: “Let Allah Sort it Out” Friday night on Facebook she detailed why she is AGAINST bombing Syria

Governor Palin rips President Obama a new one regarding his plans to attack Syria. A disastrous plan, that has absolutely no support from other nations around the world, and little support here at home.

This isn’t the first time Governor Palin has been critical of the Obama regime’s foreign policy. In April of 2011 she warned Obama about getting involved in Libya, and again in October of that year, all of this before Obama and Hillary Clinton’s bungling led to the slaughter of four brave Americans in Bengazi.

Governor Palin asks Obama if he hasn’t learned that WAGs [wild ass guesses] don’t work in war!

From Facebook: [emphasis mine]

LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT

So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” – Sarah Palin

* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

Just a little reminder for new readers: As Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin received regular high level national security briefings, and as Commander-in-Chief of Alaska’s National Guard, the only Guard in the country that is permanently deployed, shared strategic command of the 49th Missile Battalion, America’s first line of defense from nuclear attack.

A little something from RealClearPolitics’ Donald Douglas circa 2008:

John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as vice-presidential running mate is proving more shrewd by the hour. As Blackfive points out, Governor Palin, as Alaska’s chief executive, has shared strategic command of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard:

One area of Sarah Palin’s background that may help her is Alaska’s unique role in our national security and homeland defense. Several folks have have mentioned this but Tom W. was specific and his info jibes with the record.

Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden’s.

She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. Given Alaska’s proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don’t even know about.

According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.

She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Governor Sarah Palin being saluted by sailors aboard the USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) a Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser:

palinbunkerhill-1

There’s a reason why we trust Governor Palin on national security issues. She has a proven track record.

More of Governor Palin’s experience as Commander-in-Chief here.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Of First Importance

by Whitney Pitcher

Today marks the 225th anniversary of signing of America’s Constitution. On September 17th, 1787, delegates to the convention met for the final time to sign the document they had spent four months crafting. The Constitution is quite possibly the most remarkable secular text ever written despite being a mere 7,200 words– or perhaps because it is a mere 7,200 words. This blueprint simply and succinctly lays out a system of government providing three branches of government–an executive branch, a bicameral legislature, and a judicial branch. This provided a solid, but not overreaching, federal government that the Articles of Confederation failed to do. Additionally, the Constitution extends powers to the states, provides the process of both amending and ratifying the document, and denotes the Constitution’s legal status. All of these functions are outlined in just seven relatively short articles. There’s beauty in succinctness and simplicity, yet too often ugliness in obfuscation and complexity.

It is interesting what the Founders chose to mention first in this document and its various sections, as often, what is mentioned first is what writers or speakers deem most important. The preamble to the Constitution begins with three simple words “We the people”. It wasn’t “we the delegates” or “we the states”. It was “we the people”. The individuals at the constitutional convention were delegates from their respective states, but they decided to begin the document as we the people. They did not give special credence to themselves as delegates, although they could have.The Founders were all well versed and intelligent. They did not necessarily even say we the states, although those delegates were representing the states. James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution,  thought that the document was of “the people” because it was ratified by the state legislatures which represented the people. This is what separated a constitution from a league of states or a treaty of states.. A constitution of “we the people” is what made the states truly united as opposed to a loose confederation of states.

Additionally, the Founders chose to begin the Constitution by outlining the legislature, not the executive branch. James Madison often referred to the legislature as the “first branch”. The legislature is responsible for making laws. However, through abdications over the years, executive branch agencies and bureaucracies have been given powers by the legislature, except they are usually called regulations when implemented by those outside the legislative branch. In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed out an executive order from President Nixon and was ratified by Congressional hearings. While its role is to implement laws passed by Congress, the specific regulations themselves–from light bulbs to power plants– are dictated by the EPA. More recently, with the passage of Obamacare in 2010, Congress again abdicated much of the control of Medicare spending to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) –“death panel”. As Independent Women’s Foundation policy analyst Hadley Heath notes:

Each year, the CMS director will submit to IPAB the per-capita growth rate in Medicare and the target per-capita growth rate. Undoubtedly, as health care costs continue on their upward spiral (fueled by government regulations), the growth rate will be higher than the target rate. The mission of IPAB will be to make the two rates match, by drafting a proposal for changes to the Medicare program. This proposal will become law unless Congress, by supermajority in both houses, votes to stop the proposal and comes up with its own plan to match IPAB’s savings.

Through the passage of Obamacare Congress essentially ceded their ability to provide necessary changes to Medicare to an agency director and an unelected panel appointed by the President. Despite these abdications of power, the Constitution provide a blueprint for what part of government was of first importance–Congress-the body given the power to make laws.

When it comes to the executive branch, the Founders saw one role of the executive to be most important–that of commander-in-chief. The second article of the Constitution describes the executive branch. The first section of this article focuses on the election,qualifications, and oath of office for the president. However, the second article, which lays out the role of the president, begins by laying out the president’s position as commander-in-chief. This is something that is unfortunately, for the most part,  lost on our current president, as Andrew McCarthy noted at National Review over the weekend:

Defense against foreign enemies is the primary job of the president of the United States. The rationale for the office’s creation is national defense — not green venture capitalism, not rationing medical care, not improving the self-image of the “Muslim world,” not leaving no child behind, not blowing out the Treasury’s credit line. Yet, though we are entering the late innings, foreign policy and national defense have not been factors in the 2012 campaign.

President Obama has not fulfilled his primary job–commander-in-chief– as is easily seen by the fact that he has attended less than half of his national security briefings. On the heels of the report of President Obama’s lack of attendance at national security briefings came the attacks on US embassies in Egypt and Libya and other areas throughout the Middle East. Attacks that resulted in the death of four Americans including an ambassador and two Marines. Mind you, this consulate that was attacked was in an unstable, Muslim country where there wasn’t sufficient security, and the attack occurred on the first September 11th following the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Both parties are guilty of rejecting the ideas of “first importance” espoused by the Founders. Clinging to power, leaders have felt that their role should be “we the government”–that  they know better than us (we the people) how to run our lives and spend our money. At the same time, Congress has too frequently abdicated their role as a legislative body to a power thirsty executive branch. Presidents have acted as if meddling domestically in individuals lives is of first importance than the securing the nation, not in the sense of nation building or military overinvolvement, but of vigilance and deterrence. There is no reason to despair, however, the Founders knew quite well the imperfections of men.

Of second importance in the Constitution’s preamble was to “form a more perfect union”; a perfect or complete union was not possible, but getting closer to completion was indeed possible. They knew that perfection was impossible of a government of men, but they did not succumb to pessimism. Although he was not part of the constitutional convention, Thomas Jefferson once noted (emphasis added):

We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our federal brethren, and to the world at large to pursue with temper and perseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in [a] society governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace; and further, to show that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair, but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government.

We have the opportunity–both through our voice and our vote– to help reform the aberrations of our government and recall it to those original and sound principles–those first principles of self-government. It started with “we the people”, and that is how it should continue.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Russian Nuclear Bombers Intercepted Over West Coast on Fourth of July

By Gary P Jackson

It is being reported that two Russian Bear bombers were intercepted while flying near the west coast of the United States on the 4th of July, an obvious taunt from the Russians on our nation’s most important day.

This is the second incident in the past two weeks, where Russian nuclear capable bombers have entered, or come near U.S. air space.

This is nothing new, as the Russians are known to violate American air space often. On Sarah Palin’s watch, as Governor of Alaska, and Commander-in-Chief, the Alaska Air National Guard’s 176th Wing routinely escorted the Russians out of Alaskan air space. In fact, the 176th received the Air Force’s Outstanding Unit Award for its service to the nation . Part of the citation noted:

The 176th Air Control Squadron maintained North American air sovereignty by detecting, monitoring and escorting 22 Russian bombers from within its area of operations.

While it’s troubling that Russian nuclear bombers were routinely violating Alaskan air space, one has to realize how close Alaska and Russia are. The west coast of the United States is another matter altogether.

How were these nuclear capable bombers allowed to get so close to the continental United States?

From Bill Gertz at the Washington Free Beacon:

Putin’s July 4th Message

Russian nuclear-capable bombers intercepted near West Coast in second U.S. air defense zone intrusion in two weeks

Two Russian strategic nuclear bombers entered the U.S. air defense zone near the Pacific coast on Wednesday and were met by U.S. interceptor jets, defense officials told the Free Beacon.

It was the second time Moscow dispatched nuclear-capable bombers into the 200-mile zone surrounding U.S. territory in the past two weeks.

An earlier intrusion by two Tu-95 Bear H bombers took place near Alaska as part of arctic war games that a Russian military spokesman said included simulated attacks on “enemy” air defenses and strategic facilities.

A defense official said the Pacific coast intrusion came close to the U.S. coast but did not enter the 12-mile area that the U.S. military considers sovereign airspace.

The bomber flights near the Pacific and earlier flights near Alaska appear to be signs Moscow is practicing the targeting of its long-range air-launched cruise missiles on two strategic missile defense sites, one at Fort Greely, Alaska and a second site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

In May, Russian Gen. Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the Russian General Staff, said during a Moscow conference that because missile defense systems are destabilizing, “A decision on pre-emptive use of the attack weapons available will be made when the situation worsens.” The comments highlighted Russian opposition to planned deployments of U.S. missile defense interceptors and sensors in Europe.

The U.S. defense official called the latest Bear H incident near the U.S. West Coast “Putin’s Fourth of July Bear greeting to Obama.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a former Alaska commander for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, said the latest Bear H intrusion appears to be Russian military testing.

It’s becoming very obvious that Putin is testing Obama and his national security team,” McInerney told the Free Beacon. “These long-range aviation excursions are duplicating exercises I experienced during the height of the Cold War when I command the Alaska NORAD region.

McInerney said the Bear H flights are an effort by the Russians to challenge U.S. resolve, something he noted is “somewhat surprising as Obama is about to make a unilateral reduction of our nuclear forces as well as major reductions in our air defense forces.

Actions by Russia in Syria and Iran demonstrate that Cold War strategy may be resurrected,” he said.

These are not good indications of future U.S. Russian relations.”

Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said the incident occurred July 4. He said the “out-of-area patrol by two Russian long range bombers … entered the outer [Air Defense Identification Zone]” and the bombers “were visually identified by NORAD fighters.

Kirby said the bombers did not enter “sovereign airspace.” He declined to identify the specific distance the aircraft flew from the United States due to operational security concerns. He also declined to identify the types of aircraft used to intercept the bombers.

In last month’s intercept of two Russian Tu-95 bombers, U.S. F-15s and Canadian CF-18s were used. The most likely aircraft used in Wednesday’s intercept were U.S. F-15 jets based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.

Kirby and U.S. Northern Command spokesmen, apparently in line with the Obama administration’s conciliatory reset policy toward Russia, sought to play down both bomber intrusions.

The Pentagon spokesman said the latest Pacific intrusion was “assessed as another training activity.”

Rather than using traditional military terminology common during the Cold War to describe the meeting of the violating bombers as an “intercept,” Kirby said that the bombers were “visually identified” by jets described only as joint U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) jets.

NORAD is postured to ensure air warning and control for the continental United States, Canada, and Alaska,” Kirby said. “NORAD maintains an extensive radar system around North America and has aircraft located throughout the United States and Canada that can respond quickly to any unidentified flights approaching the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).”

Kirby said the ADIZ is extends about 200 miles from the coast and is “mainly within international airspace.”

The outer limits of the ADIZ goes well beyond U.S. sovereign air space which only extends 12 nautical miles from land,” he said. “As part of its mission, NORAD tracks and identifies all aircraft flying in the ADIZ in advance of any aircraft entering sovereign airspace.”

Read more here.

It’s very troubling to see the Obama regime downplaying these overflights by nuclear capable bombers. It’s highly unlikely these aircraft actually had nuclear weapons aboard, but it’s obvious that Russia is testing President Obama’s resolve to protect the nation from her enemies. And make no mistake, Russia is our enemy.

As noted, these bombers may have been testing their ability to launch cruise missiles and take out our early warning systems as well as our defense capabilities.

It would seem Obama doesn’t much care about protecting the homeland from what could have just as well have been a full scale nuclear attack, or an attack on our defenses in preparation for such an attack.

The Russians, on the other hand, would have never been so tolerant of such activities. Remember, in September of 1983 the Soviets shot down a civilian passenger jet, Korean Airlines flight number 007, killing all 289 passengers and crew. The plane was simply off course, and clearly identifiable as a commercial airliner, and yet, it was blown out of the sky.

I’m not saying our Air Force should be blowing Russian nuclear bombers out of the sky [unless they fail to comply with orders to leave U.S. airspace] but allowing them to get in sight of our west coast is completely unacceptable.

The entire response by the Obama regime is unacceptable.

If you’re still looking for a reason to vote for Mitt Romney, in order defeat Barack Obama, this might be your answer. We simply cannot have nuclear capable bombers overflying our nation. And it’s obvious that Barack Obama doesn’t care.

We need new leadership in this country.

30 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Delusional: Now Rick Santorum Claims He’s the Only Candidate with Commander-in-Chief Experience

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said today he is “the only candidate in this race that has any experience as commander-in-chief.”

By Gary P Jackson

I don’t even know where to start.

Rick Santorum has never run a city and never run a state. He was a lawyer then a corrupt congresscritter. Santorum never served in the military and the closest he has come to “combat” was when he served as the attorney for the World Wrestling Federation, where he successfully argued the WWF should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations, because wrestling is entertainment and not an actual sport.

I’ve researched Santorum’s record well, and nowhere on his resume is there a notation that he has ever been Governor of a state, or of course, President. And yet, as Byron York reports, Santorum claims to be the only candidate with experience as commander-in-chief.

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said today he is “the only candidate in this race that has any experience as commander-in-chief.

Santorum made the remark in a brief session with the press after a meet-and-greet at Dreamland, a storied barbecue restaurant not far from the University of Alabama.  With the state’s primary coming up tomorrow, a local reporter asked Santorum simply, “What’s your specific message for Alabama?

Alabama has a chance to elect someone [who agrees with] their values,” Santorum answered.  “Limited government.  Somebody who believes in a strong national defense.  The only person in this race who’s said I  wouldn’t cut the Defense Department.  The only person in this race that has any experience as commander-in-chief.  The only person in this race who’s ever reformed an entitlement, that wants to get smaller government.  And of course, I’m someone who’s been a leader on family issues.

Santorum has of course never been president, and he has also never been a governor, in charge of a state’s national guard forces. Asked about the commander-in-chief reference, campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said later, “What he meant to say is that he is the only one who has the experience to be commander-in-chief.”  Stewart said Santorum was referring specifically to his service on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Geena Davis has more experience as Commander-in-Chief than Rick Santorum

Words simply fail me. I know Santorum is reality challenged, but this is simply beyond the pale. Santorum’s campaign spokeswoman tried to cover for him, but being a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee is nowhere near the same as being commander-in-chief. Nor does it necessarily give you the experience needed.

You know what position does make one commander-in-chief [without being president] ? Governor. Rick Santorum has never been governor, of anything. Despite Santorum’s ridiculous claims to the contrary, there is an actual, former commander-in-chief running for President: Mitt Romney.

As for reform, looking at Satorum’s actual voting record tells a different tale than the one Santorum is telling.

Besides being a corrupt, Big Government Statist, it appears Santorum is delusional as well.

36 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Tribute to the Troops with Governor Palin – Live Stream

By Gary P Jackson

SarahPAC will be hosting a live streaming of Sarah Palin’s Tribute to the Troops speech tonight at 9pm EST, 8pm Central, 7pm Mountain 6pm Pacific.

Sarah is speaking at Colorado Christian University.

She will be appearing along side distinguished military leaders and service members to show appreciation to our nation’s men and women in uniform past, and present – at home, and abroad.

All proceeds will be donated to the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), a charity benefiting families of the fallen. Please check out their website and make a donation here.

You can watch Sarah’s speech by clicking here.

Sarah Palin is the former Commander-in-Chief of both the Alaska National Guard and the Alaska Defense Force.

Governor Sarah Palin elevating the troops ranks at a promotion ceremony at Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo in June of 2009

Leave a comment

Filed under sarah palin

Sarah Palin: Commander in Chief’s Appalling Action with Our Troops

From Sarah Palin via Facebook: [emphasis mine]

Yesterday the House passed H.R. 1363, which funds our Department of Defense and our military for the rest of the year at their current levels. It allows for the continuation of current military operations, which is pretty important when you’re fighting three wars. It also funds the government for another week and cuts $12 billion in wasteful spending. So why would the Commander in Chief declare that he will veto this? Why would he play politics at the expense of our troops who are putting everything on the line to protect us? Memo to the President: I doubt the insurgents will stop and wait for a government shutdown to end before resuming actions. You need to fund our troops, sir.

Like me, you might be asking yourself: Why on earth would he threaten to veto funding for the troops? What is his game plan? Basically, he’ll veto military funding because he wants the rest of the government funded too. And by the rest of the government, he means things like Harry Reid’s “Cowboy Poetry.” Essentially, he’s holding military funding hostage to NPR funding. This is a perfect analogy for what is wrong with this entire budget showdown. Our federal government has strayed so far from what is constitutionally mandated that they are blind to the fact that NPR funding is not a constitutional duty. Funding our military at a time of war is!

The House GOP does not want a shut down. They just want legitimate cuts (and I would argue not even enough!). If we can’t agree to cut a billion here and a billion there, we’ll never close this $1.5 trillion deficit.

Let’s look at the numbers. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year. We’re paying $200 billion a year on our interest alone. That’s half a billion dollars per day on interest. And our $1.5 trillion deficit means that we’re borrowing $4 billion per day just to keep afloat. So, we pat ourselves on the back if we cut a billion dollars here or a billion there in discretionary spending, as we borrow $4 billion a day and pay half a billion a day in interest. The deficit for the month of February alone was the highest in our history at $223 billion. That’s more than the entire deficit for the year 2007. And there’s no end in sight. We’re not heading towards the iceberg. We’ve already hit it. Now we’re taking on water. We must find a way to get back to harbor to repair our ship of state before it’s too late.

Where is President Obama in all of this? He just doesn’t get it. His 2012 budget was a signal of that. The President’s proposed budget offered higher taxes and higher spending. A budget is supposed to be more than just numbers crunched on a spreadsheet. It’s supposed to be a credible blueprint of a nation’s priorities and direction. The President’s budget was a political document. It was designed not to ruffle any feathers or take any decisive moves to deal with the deficit problem. Instead of cutting spending, he’s moving us in the opposite direction. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the White House was not telling the truth when they claimed that their 2012 budget reduces the deficit. It actually increases it. Instead of dealing with the hard realities we face, he just kicked the can down the road. That’s not leadership. That’s politics.

Real leadership means leading by example. It means showing an “all-in” commitment to tackling complex issues and putting in the time and effort to educate the American public. Right now the American people have not been educated about this major challenge we face. Keep in mind that perception often becomes reality, and the perception President Obama has repeatedly given off is that he can’t be bothered to deal with our debt crisis.

This is profoundly unfair to the American people. Throughout our history, we have proven again and again that we are strong enough and wise enough to do the right thing when we are properly informed. We can judge and make the tough choices when we are not spun by the media or the financial class or the political class. We the People can decide – if our leaders level with us honestly.

It’s about time the President step up to the plate and lead responsibly. Our troops who are putting themselves in harm’s way deserve a Commander in Chief who is not AWOL from the debt debate. The American people deserve a president who will take on the tough challenges and understand that funding “Car Talk” is not as crucial as funding our troops at a time of three wars.

2008 seems like such a long time ago, but 2012 is just around the corner. There is a leadership vacuum in the White House right now, but that’s nothing that another good old-fashioned election can’t fix.

~ Sarah Palin

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Sarah Palin’s Strong Foreign Policy Goes “On The Record”

By Gary P Jackson

After speaking in Naples, Florida Wednesday evening, Sarah Palin went On The Record with Greta Van Susteren. Though teased as a look at Sarah’s trip to Israel, and the possibility of a presidential run, much of the interview centered around Libya and the lack of coherent policy. Sarah Palin comes off as a competent and confident leader in this interview.

The emerging Palin Doctrine can be summed up in her philosophy that if we are going to be involved in these things we must be “in it to win it and if in doubt, get out” I take that to mean, either have a winning mindset from the start, or don’t bother. This go hard or go home attitude is how one wins the future, to borrow a slogan from our President. This is very Reaganesque. His strategy with the Soviet Union could be boiled down to four words: “We win, they lose“.

The world expects a strong United States. It expects the United States to have a strong Commander-in-Chief. History shows when the United States becomes disengaged, or weak on the world stage, very bad things happen.

Both World Wars, the rise of radical Islam, and even the build up to 9/11 can be traced to unengaged, “progressive” Presidents. [Democrats] who were more interested in re engineering the United States, building a socialist utopia, rather than keeping their eye on the ball.

We are seeing all of this play out once again with Obama’s helter-skelter, all over the map, lunacy. The Obama regime’s foreign policy has all the makings for a good screwball comedy. Sadly though, this is real life, and people will die.

As you watch Greta’s interview with Sarah, you see a Commander-in-Chief. An optimistic leader who looks at how things are, sees how things can be. I’m not just talking Foreign policy either. When I hear Sarah Palin speak, I am reminded of the same feelings I got hearing Ronald Reagan speak when he was President. Sarah has that steady, competent leadership ability to get the nation, and the world, back on track.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan, sarah palin

Once Again Sarah Palin Has To Tell Obama To Get Spending Priorities Straight Concerning Pay Cuts For Military

Priorities,priorities- Keep eye on PresObama’s soldier pay decrease in midst of overspending elsewhere&govt union pay raises. Is he serious?

~Sarah Palin via Twitter

If there is one thing the Obama regime can do to get Mama Grizzly all fired up, it’s screw around with our brave man and women who sacrifice all to secure our Freedom and Liberty!

I am constantly in awe of our military. The fact that so many young men and women would voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way for all of us is simply inspiring.

This isn’t the first time Sarah has had to take the Obama regime on over military pay. Not long after taking office Obama cut off the pensions to the surviving members of the Alaska Territorial Guard, what is now called the Alaska Defense Force, a federally recognized militia, that is part of Homeland Security’s master planning.

The survivors of the Territorial Guard are WWII veterans who fought the Japanese on Alaskan soil. They were never paid for their service to the nation. With a lot of hard work though, pensions were secured for surviving members of the Guard.

With the stroke of a pen, Obama cut them off.

This was the typical passive-aggressive kind of attack Obama has made on Sarah since day one. Obama is that petty. The guy can’t face her head on, so he messes with things she cares about. He’s tried to mess with the AGIA…Sarah’s natural gas pipeline as well. That deal is ongoing.

Of course, at the time, in her role as Governor and Commander-In-Chief of the ADF, Sarah unloaded on Obama, then took strong action, signing into law provisions to pay these WWII heroes through the state until the matter could be resolved to satisfaction, which it finally has.

You can read more about this despicable act by Obama here.

Yesterday Sarah sent the tweet quoted above, and posted a short note on Facebook that simply read:

Soldier pay decreases in the midst of overspending elsewhere and government union

pay raises? Seriously? What are our priorities?

Sarah of course, is right. The Obama regime is growing government at an alarming rate. These government employees are making much more than market rate wages, earning quite a bit more than the rest of the population. Of course, being a Union man through and through, Obama is all for huge pay raises for this group.

The nearly $1 trillion bailout bill has been nothing but a government boondoggle, mostly wasted on pet projects, while experts agree having absolutely no positive effect on the economy.

The fact that we can waste money on nonsensical studies, and pork projects, but cannot find the money to pay those who protect us all from harm is simply unacceptable.

Along with her thoughts, Sarah linked to this from Newsmax:

Outrage: Obama Administration Targets Military for Pay Reductions

President Barack Obama — who came to power with the help of government employee unions across the nation and has lavished on them hundreds of billions in stimulus funds to keep them on federal, state and local payrolls with no strings attached — is moving to cut spending on salaries for military personnel.

This weekend The Washington Post headlined story, “Pentagon Asking Congress to Hold Back on Generous Increases in Troop Pay,” disclosed that the Obama administration is “pleading” with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than lawmakers have proposed.

The Pentagon contends that Congress simply has been too generous with troops during the past decade.

In fact, lawmakers have lavished so much money on troops, according to the Post, that service members are now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

For example, the military brass claims that an average sergeant in the Army with four years of service and one dependent would receive $52,589 in annual compensation, according to the paper. This figure includes basic pay, housing, and subsistence allowances, as well as tax benefits.

Meanwhile, a U.S. postal letter carrier, with no supervisory or hazardous duty, makes approximately $80,000 a year when all benefits are factored in.

Critics of the Obama administration’s efforts to cut soldier’s pay say America’s security has been strengthened by higher pay rates, as qualified veterans are re-enlisting at record rates, reversing the problem the military witnessed just a few years ago.

Any attempt to link rising military personnel costs with shrinking military readiness is total nonsense,” said Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., who leads the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the largest and oldest major combat veterans organization.

If the Defense Department needs a larger budget for personnel programs, then let the VFW carry that message to Congress. Just don’t pin the budget blame on service members and military retirees.

Tradewell’s ire was targeted this past week at Clifford L. Stanley, the Defense undersecretary of personnel and readiness, who said during recent testimony before the personnel subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee: “Rising personnel costs could dramatically affect the readiness of the department.”

What’s hurtful,” said Tradewell, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis., “is a continuing perception that DoD is more concerned about the budget than they are about recruiting and retaining a professional volunteer force that’s been at war now for more than eight years.”

According to Stanley, last year was the military’s most successful recruiting year since the establishment of the all-volunteer force in 1973.

Although advocates for military families argue that the decade-long spending spree reverses severe cuts that the military suffered in the 1990s, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other military brass fear that the spending will threaten security in the years to come. That will mean less money to buy weapons and maintain aging equipment.

On Saturday, Gates told reporters that massive deficits can impact how the president and policy makers confront emerging threats like Iran.

Lawmakers consistently have overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Congress has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring healthcare costs, which Gates told reporters are “eating us alive,” by raising co-pays or premiums.

The military admits the improving compensation for troops is helping retention.

For example, improvements in pay and benefits have made it more likely that sailors will stick around longer, Vice Adm. Mark E. Ferguson III, the chief of naval personnel, told the Post.

A Navy survey last year found that about 60 percent of spouses wanted their sailors to make a career of Navy life, meaning a stint of at least 20 years. In 2005, only about 20 percent of spouses felt the same way.

I think pay was previously a concern, but it’s started to change,” Ferguson said. Congress had been “extremely generous” but rising personnel costs were already influencing what the Navy spends to operate, maintain and modernize its fleet, he added.

The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases.

Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent.

Although that extra half of a percent may not seem like much, one expert told the Post that it would accrue annually and cost about $3.5 billion over the next decade.

But congressional supporters of the men and women in the Armed Services are questioning why they are being singled out for future pay cutbacks when other government agencies and unions are not.

The U.S. Postal Service, for example, is slated to give letter carriers an increase of 1.9 percent this coming year.

And postal employees are considered to be grossly overpaid compared with their private counterparts. A postal supervisor, for example, can make $70,000 or year or more, plus significant benefits.

Last year, Congress had to help fill a $3.8 billion deficit at the federally backed agency, but there has been no discussion of salary cuts for postal employees. Instead, postal officials have focused on reducing service, including Saturday delivery.

Look, nobody wants to belittle our nation’s letter carriers. If you’ve ever seen these men and women, you know that, for the most part, they work hard and earn their pay. However, other than the occasional loose dog, the postman doesn’t face much danger!

The Obama regime has a real distaste for the military, as do most in the Marxist-democrat party. One remembers talk early on of making the military pay for their own health care, and there are still questions with the new unconstitutional ObamaCare fiasco, as to what may happen.

Meanwhile, as Obama wants to cut the pay of our bravest, Connie Hair, writing for Human Events, reports the non-ending bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are costing the American taxpayers $7 BILLION a month! Fannie and Freddie are the reasons we are such a financial mess to start with. This Marxist-democrat pet project is nothing but a sink hole for tax payer money to be thrown in. Both agencies should ether be sold off and privatized, or simply eliminated.



Fannie and  Freddie Bailouts Cost Taxpayers $7 Billion per Month

The Senate continues voting today on amendments to the Democrats’ partisan finance “reform” bill while ignoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored entities (GSEs) at the heart of the financial meltdown.

Fannie and Freddie still owe taxpayers more than twice as much as the next closest bailout debtor, AIG, and they’re both asking for more taxpayer funds.

Fannie Mae yesterday reported a $13 billion 2010 first quarter loss, begging for another $8.4 billion in bailout funding for a total of $83.6 billion. Last week, Freddie Mac asked for an additional $10.6 billion that would total $61.3 billion.

According to Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), top Republican on the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, both are bleeding bailout dollars.

[Monday’s] announcement that Fannie Mae has again asked taxpayers for more money after reporting a first-quarter loss of more than $13 billion demonstrates that Congress must act to end this taxpayer-funded bailout, which together with the bailout of Freddie Mac, has now cost taxpayers an average of $7 billion per month since it began,” Hensarling said. “I urge the Senate to take-up the provisions of my bill, The GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act now included in Senator McCain’s amendment to the Dodd financial regulation bill.

Republican Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Judd Gregg (N.H.) and John McCain (Ariz.) filed the amendment to the Dodd bill last week. It has not yet been scheduled for a vote.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) had a hard time yesterday trying to explain why Fannie and Freddie are not included in the Democrats’ “reform” bill.

I think it’s a fair claim to say that we haven’t done enough to address Fannie and Freddie,” Warner told CNBC. “It is the big elephant in the room that hasn’t been addressed.”

More like the big donkey.

Warner says Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and author of the partisan Democrat bill, promises they’ll come back next year and reform Fannie and Freddie.

He’s put in place an effort to try to come back next year, he won’t be here, but we’ll come back next year and take on Fannie and Freddie in a more thoughtful way,” Warner said.

Right.

It’s too bad the sweetheart deals and tanking poll numbers forced Dodd to bow out of this year’s election — so he won’t be around for next year’s big fix.

Perhaps Virginia voters can hold Warner responsible for the credibility of Dodd’s promise in a few years.

If you didn’t already know, Barack Obama was second only to Chris Dodd in the amount of campaign money he has received from Fannie and Freddie.

That we can continue to fund one of the most corrupt, and inept operations in the nation, but can’t pay our bravest, is disturbing, disgusting, and outrageous!

I join Sarah Palin in calling for the Obama regime to stop wasting taxpayer money buying votes and start doing right by our troops!

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Sarah Palin Issues A Rallying Cry For All Americans: Stand Up for SEALs Standing Up for Us

As everyone knows by now, Barack Obama and his corrupt minions are engaged in a massive jihad against our military, CIA, and well, anyone and everyone charged with keeping America safe.

At the same time, we are now reading terrorists Miranda warnings and treating them like American citizens. Obama’s Justice Department just hired nine attorneys who have made a career out of defending terrorists. The Attorney General himself, Eric Holder, has a long history of defending terrorists. Holder was instrumental in securing a pardon for 16 murderous FALN terrorists during the Clinton administration.

One could go on and on….

Obama’s latest target is a group of brave Navy SEALs who captured one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists: Ahmed Hashim Abed. Abed is the terrorist mastermind who organized the killing, burning and mutilating of four American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, in March 2004.

The terrorists strung up the blackened bodies of these Americans on a box-girder bridge over the Euphrates River, a horrifying event that made headlines worldwide.

As all terrorists are trained to do, this animal claimed the SEALs roughed him up when they captured him. Of course, this administration is far more worried about the terrorist’s feelings than anything else. I mean God forbid one of these precious little lovelies get their hair mussed!

The end result is three of America’s bravest are being persecuted for doing their job.

Many Americans have joined the fight to protect these brave men though. Sarah Palin is one of them. Her latest Facebook blog is dedicated to these three brave SEALs and calls on all of America to stand beside them in their hour of need.

Stand Up for SEALs Standing Up for Us

First the Obama Administration opened up the possibility of prosecuting CIA interrogators doing their jobs seeking information from terrorists. Then they tried to go after the Bush Administration lawyers who acted in good faith to protect us in the months after 9/11. Now some of the military brass are court-martialing three brave Navy SEALs for allegedly throwing a single punch at Iraqi terrorist leader Ahmed Hashim Abed. This is wrong. The Washington Times got it right: Save the SEALs.

These brave warriors belong in combat, not in the courthouse. They captured the most wanted terrorist in Iraq. We may never know how many other heroic missions they undertook on behalf of our country. The charges should be dropped, and they should be returned to their unit – with our gratitude for their service.

Stand up for the SEALs who are standing up for us!

– Sarah Palin

Sarah was right when she told Obama that we need a real Commander-In-Chief, not some Harvard law professor.

The brave men and women who make up our military and intelligence services deserve the support of the American people. They do not deserve a so-called commander-in-chief who is hostile to them and their mission.

It’s time for all Americans to rise up and tell Barack Obama to stop persecuting brave members of the military, the CIA, and other services dedicating to keeping America free and safe, and start killing terrorists!

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Sarah Palin: Stay Focused People! Moving The Terror Trial Doesn’t Fix The Problem

The most important job a President has is that of Commander-in-Chief. Protecting the nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic should be job one for any President.

Unfortunately, like everything else Barack Obama has been put in charge of, he has proven to be an absolute failure as a Commander-in-Chief. Three high profile terrorist attacks on American soil, plus the massacre of CIA agents abroad bear this out.

As bad as that is though, Obama’s decision to bring the 9/11 terrorists to New York for a civilian trial vs a military tribunal, a time honored way of dealing with enemy combatants that dates back to ancient times, proves Obama just isn’t capable of handling this job. It proves he has a pre-9/11 mentality in a very dangerous post-9/11 world.

Sarah Palin has some insight in this just released note:

Stay Focused: Relocating Terrorists’ Trial Doesn’t Solve the Main Problem

Today at 5:57pm

People are celebrating the fact that the Obama Administration is considering relocating the terrorists’ trial from New York to another American city. Yet there’s still no talk of moving the trial out of our U.S. civilian courts to where it should take place – a military tribunal.

Now the administration is backtracking in order to fix its initially blundered decision to try these dangerous terrorists in New York City despite the great danger and cost to New Yorkers. This scenario is all too common in Washington. The tactic is to propose something so outrageous that the public will rise up and demand common sense, and then the White House “concedes” and changes its initial decision to give the impression of newfound reasonability and moderation. But the problem still isn’t solved! The trial location debate becomes a diversion so that we’ll take our eyes off the ball. The point missed is that our President still wants to give these terrorists U.S. constitutional protections in our civilian courts, allowing them to lawyer-up on our dime.

This tactic is in the same vein as another Washington game: creating the appearance of a “crisis” in order to push for a radical solution. (“The health care crisis must be fixed by government now or we’re all gonna die! The earth’s temperature is fluctuating; government must fix this crisis now or we’re all gonna die! Private businesses made poor decisions and bureaucrats claim they’re too big to fail, so government must fix this crisis now or we’re all gonna die!“)

Politicians and lobbyists announce that there is a “crisis,” and never letting a good crisis go to waste, they propose a radical solution to fix it. The public listens intently, and in a sincere desire to help, an alternative to the politicians’ radical solution gets put forward. The politicians then “concede” and mellow out their radical solution. The public’s attention has been diverted to tinkering on the periphery, all the while ignoring the real problem at the heart of the “crisis” that started the whole debate.

The fact is our government has a choice as to where to try the terrorists. We don’t have to try them in our civilian courts. The peripheral debate regarding in which city to try these evil, dangerous haters-of-America is a diversion. Let’s get back to the heart of the matter: what choice will our government make – terrorist trials in civilian courts or military tribunals?

– Sarah Palin

That, folks, is called hitting the nail on the head!

Washington is very good at playing the old game of diversion. Of bait and switch. Obama is a master of it. It’s one of the few things he and his Chicago crew have been able to pull off correctly since taking office. It’s the old slight of hand.

Giving KSM and the rest of these savages full constitutional rights and a civilian trial is ludicrous, especially since Obama himself has already pronounced that they will be found guilty, and no matter the verdict, they will be held forever.

A civilian trial serves only one purpose, and that is to embarrass the United States and give these murderous terrorists a world wide stage to bash our nation. Of course, the way Obama and his people look at this, is it’s just another way to bash President George W Bush and his administration too.

This madness has to stop. We have provisions for military tribunals already set up, and they pass United States Supreme Court muster. Put these cats through the military system and be done with them!

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized