Tag Archives: despicable

It’s What He Does: At The Height of Conservative’s Struggle Against Democrats in the 80’s Newt Attacked Reagan!

The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators.

Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means) and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

By Gary P Jackson

When you tell a Newt supporter the truth about the man, they will, unfailingly call you a liar. Claim you are just attacking a good man.

Thing is, I rarely talk about Newt Gingrich without reminding them that when it comes to the fight between Conservatives and socialist democrats, in reality, good vs evil, Newt always stands with evil. Worse, Newts stands with his socialist fellow travelers at the very time Conservatives are fighting them the hardest.

When Ronald Reagan wrote an Executive Order forcing the FCC to stop enforcing the Ani-American “Fairness Doctrine” Newt gathered up his socialist buddies and wrote legislation bringing it back. This passed legislation actually passed, and Reagan was forced to veto it. Reagan stopped Newt and his comrades from the continued destruction of Liberty and Freedom.

We all remember that at the time Conservatives were fighting the hardest against the global warming scam, Newt sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and begged Americans to fall in line and support the socialist “green” movement. In fact, Newt has never stopped backing the socialist greens. It was only after he became a presidential candidate that he fired the lefty who was ghostwriting the section in his book, due out in 2013, on global warming.

Then there was L’Affaire Scozzafava.

Obviously there have been more betrays of Conservatism, and America, by Newt, there is a definite pattern of this disgusting behavior.

You can read more about it here.

Elliott Abrams has more examples. This time Newt sides with the socialists against Ronald Reagan. The ultimate betrayal of all, except for maybe stabbing President George W Bush in the back during the lead up to war. [emphasis mine]

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.

Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Read more here.

What more do so-called “conservatives” need to know about Newt Gingrich? The man has a record of stabbing Conservatives, and by extension America, in the back. And that record spans over two decades!

Do you really think after all of this time Newt has changed?

If so, I have this wealthy uncle in Nigeria who needs your help!

A dedication to Newt and his fellow travelers:


Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan

Despicable: Newt Goes on Miami Spanish Radio Claiming Romney Supports Castro

By Gary P Jackson

I’ve seen candidates pull some despicable stunts, but this is just beyond the pale. As everyone knows Miami has a huge Republican leaning Cuban population. Obviously they are no fans of the Castro brothers. Many escaped the island’s dictatorial grip to come to America.

I came across this story over the weekend. It’s a fine example of the sort of person Newt is. It’s right out Newt’s socialist comrades’ playbook of demonetization. Alinsky would be proud.

First the back story. In 2008, evidently trying to connect with the Cuban population in Miami, Romney used a phrase connected to Castro. Not his finest hour, and a shining example of why, if you don’t have a clue, just be yourself and hope for the best. Don’t try to “fit in” when you clearly don’t.

Now most of us would see this, make fun of Mitt Romney…. relentlessly…. and move on. Not Newt. Nope, he’s running ads, in Spanish, on radio stations that serve the Cuban market.

When Newt Gingrich stopped by WAQI-AM (710), better known as Radio Mambí, last Friday, he promised to soon be on the South Florida airwaves in English and Spanish.

He has followed through, at least in part, airing a Spanish-language ad on some of the most influential radio stations in Miami.

In the piece, a man’s voice (not Gingrich) calls Mitt Romney a “liberal” who is “anti-immigrant” and may have “fame” but not be up to the job of president. Perhaps most damning, the ad says, “Mitt Romney goes around using Castro phrases,” referring to the 2008 presidential campaign when Romney, campaigning in Miami, mistakenly associated a Fidel Castro slogan with a free Cuba.

Romney talked about Patria o muerte, venceremos — Fatherland or death, we shall overcome — a trademark phrase Castro used to close his speeches. Romney’s use of the phrase did not sit well with Cuban Americans, who, according to a Miami Herald report at the time, ”

The ad also refers to Miami Republicans Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and former Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who have backed Romney but whom Gingrich served with in Congress.

[ …. ]

Here’s the text of the latter portion of the ad. The translation is ours.

Newt Gingrich is a candidate who has committed himself to the Hispanic people, a Republican in the style of Ronald Reagan with experience. Unlike Mitt Romney, who goes around using Castro phrases, Newt Gingrich fought against the regime alongside Ileana and Lincoln to approve the Helms-Burton law. He supported the creation of Radio and TV Martí and is in favor of prosecuting the Castro brothers for bringing down the Brothers to the Rescue planes. Newt Gingrich has given his word to the Hispanic community in writing and won’t let us down.

Now obviously, beside the lie that Romney supports Castro, Mitt is not “anti-immigrant” as Newt suggests. He does have a record of being tough on illegals.

Meanwhile, Newt is the biggest amnesty shill left in the race.

The Herald has this response from the Romney campaign:

UPDATE: Here’s a response from Romney campaign spokesman Alberto Martinez:

This ad is false and full of ridiculous claims. Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart all stand with Mitt Romney because he has laid out a clear vision for spreading democracy in our hemisphere. By attacking anyone who supports common-sense border security and immigration reforms as anti-immigrant,’ Newt Gingrich is once again reading from Barack Obama’s liberal talking points.”

Read more here.

Anyone who watched Monday night’s debate knows that Mitt Romney has a pretty strong anti-Castro stance. Regime change is something he supports.

Newt Gingrich has done some really rotten things in his life, but this ranks up there with some of the worst.

Politics is war, that’s for sure, but honorable men [and women] fight the battles using FACTS about the candidates and themselves. Newt is not an honorable man. He lies about his own record, and then lies about others as well.

Is this the sort of man we want leading our nation? I don’t think so.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Newt Admits His Romney Hit Piece Movie is Full of Lies and Misinformation WaPo Gives It 4 Pinocchios

By Gary P Jackson

It seems Newt Gingrich’s movie, promoted by one of his super PACs, is being universally condemned for it’s false information and total misrepresentation of Bain Capital and Mitt Romney.

On Thursday I noted Fortune Magazine had found several distortions of the facts.

The Washington Post gives the movie four Pinocchios because of the amount of misinformation and out and out lies in the movie.:

Newt Gingrich, meet Michael Moore!

The 29-minute video “King of Bain” is such an over-the-top assault on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney that it is hard to know where to begin. It uses evocative footage from distraught middle-class Americans who allege that Romney’s deal-making is responsible for their woes. It mixes images of closed factories and shuttered shops with video clips of Romney making him look foolish, vain or greedy. And it has a sneering voice-over that seeks to push every anti-Wall Street button possible.

Here’s just a sampling of what Romney and Bain Capital, which he once headed, is accused of: “Stripping American businesses of assets, selling everything to the highest bidder and often killing jobs for big financial rewards . . . high disdain for American businesses and workers . . . upended the company and dismantled the work force; now they were able to make a handsome profit . . . cash rampage . . . contributing to the greatest American job loss since World War II . . . turn the misfortune of others into their own enormous financial gain.

The Post breaks the movie down really well. It’s a devastating indictment on Newt Gingrich and his PAC. It shows just how far the little weasel will sink in order to try and win. You can read the facts about Bain and Romney here.

As I told someone last night on Twitter. Please don’t mistake my DEFENSE of Mitt Romney as SUPPORT for Mitt Romney. The thing is, I don’t like these dishonest attacks. Wouldn’t like it no matter who the candidate was.

Maybe this comes from years of defending Sarah Palin against all of the lies told about her.

Maybe it’s a sense of fair play.

Maybe it’s my complete and total disgust for Newt Gingrich, a despicable human being who should be run out of politics forever.

Maybe it’s all of the above.

Ed Morrissey has a great piece today that includes Newt’s mea culpa. Of Course, cry baby Newt is also whining about Romney’s ads against him. It seems having the truth told about him upsets Newt so much, he thought an movie filled with lies about Romney was perfectly OK.

I want readers to make no mistake about what I am saying here. Yes, this is a defense of Mitt Romney, insomuch as it’s a defense of free markets and capitalism. What Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have done, attacking free market’s, capitalism, and the American way of life is despicable. So despicable it’s forced a lot of people who do not support a Romney presidency to stand up and defend our American way of life.

Morrissey included this Ramirez cartoon in his report. It’s a perfect comment on how the lessor candidates have attacked the very core of capitalism, free markets, and the American way of life, just to score cheap political points:

Mitt Romney’s record, his actual record, deserves a look see. His time as governor is wrought with problems. All of that is fair game. There is no need to make up lies about Romney in order to defeat him. It’s telling that Newt and his buddy Perry don’t get that.

Sadly, rather than harming Romney, they have galvanized his support. Moreover, people who don’t much care for Romney find themselves defending him, out of a sense of fair play, if nothing else.

The American people are fair, and while they want a real fight for the GOP nomination, they want a fair one. They deserve a hard fought, but fair battle. Newt is not capable of such a battle, because he is no good.

Newt’s little temper tantrum and poor decisions have hurt the conservative movement, not that he cares.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Ron Paul: I Wouldn’t Have Sent Troops to Fight Nazis and Save Jews, Israel Shouldn’t Exist

By Gary P Jackson

First, a little music to set the mood:

From YNet:

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul’s past statements are coming back to haunt him – and this time it’s about the US’ role in ending World War 2 and the Holocaust.

Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul “wishes Israel didn’t exist,” another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he “wouldn’t have risked American lives to end the Holocaust.

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP’s leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a “moral imperative.

I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn’t.

You can read the entire interview here.

Words can’t express what a despicable piece of human debris Ron Paul is. Six million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis.

Though some were used as slave labor first, all had their humanity ripped from them, and in the end, they were all killed. Most marched to their death on an industrial scale.

The Nazis killed so many Jews they had to create better, more efficient ways to do it. They built huge gas chambers to kill hundreds of men, women and children at a time.

Women and children stripped of their humanity, on their way to the gas chambers

Bodies pile up

After being gassed, the bodies were then stacked in ovens and incinerated. Again, mass murder on an industrial scale.

And yet, Ron Paul says if he had been president during WWII, he wouldn’t have lifted a finger to stop the Nazis. If the United States hadn’t intervened, and helped destroy the Third Reich, most of the world would be speaking German today. The world would be a socialist hell.

Remember, with-in days of Pearl Harbor, the Nazis declared war on the United States. They sent agents to America. Saboteurs, who if not apprehended, looked to do major damage. The Nazi U-boats also routinely attacked U.S. shipping. Sinking unarmed merchant ships and murdering thousands.

Ron Paul would have done nothing.

No way to sugar coat this one folks. Ron Paul and people like him, do not deserve to be a part of the human race. There’s a special place in hell reserved for his sort.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Despicable: Ron Paul Says [Republican] Dr Martin Luther King is a “Gay Pedophile” and More Things That Piss Me Off

By Gary P Jackson

I was hoping to finish out the week sending out good tidings and cheer, and get back to politics next week, but with all of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters in the news, and this bit of business from 2008 coming up, I simply must say something.

Ron Paul is a well known racist and anti-Semite. There’s a reason why white supremacist groups like Stormfront.org love the guy. All one has to do is read these Neo-Nazis’ website to understand what you got here. The hate drips off the page.

Here we have Tucker Carlson and Jamie Kirchick discussing one of the despicable comments Ron Paul made about Dr Martin Luther King. It seems Herr Doktor Paul called Dr King a “gay pedophile.” and over twenty years had all sorts of, as Kirchick describes it, “racist, anti-semitic, homophobic invective” in his newsletters

Vodpod videos no longer available.

*If you are having problems with the MSNBC video player, click on the Reason link below.

Reason Magazine has more on this here.

I was quite young during Dr King’s time, but I do know this. At a time when radical socialists and communists were running wild, burning cities, and becoming mainstream democrats, Dr King, a Republican, was talking about the need for all God’s children to find a way to live together. LBJ and Hoover had files on King. They illegally wiretapped his phones. They did everything to destroy him.

Like all men, Dr King was not a perfect man, but after he was gunned down, what had been a peaceful movement turned violent. Domestic terror groups like the Black Panthers would eventually find themselves in partnerships with the likes of Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground. Nothing but crime and terrorism came from that marriage.

Dr King is an inspiration to us all. He wanted change, but he wanted to change man’s heart, mind, and soul …. not start a violent revolution.

And yet, here’s Ron Paul calling Dr King a “gay pedophile” and all blacks “animals.”

As much as he may hate the Negoes, he still managed to endorse former disgraced Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, an out and out communist, for president in 2008. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas, BTW.

This is the kind of clown the Republican Party wants in it’s ranks? [or as the Iowa frontrunner?]

As bad as it is, nothing is worse than Ron Paul [and his supporters] hatred for the Jewish people. In Ron Paul’s sick little world, which includes conspiracy theorist and industrial strength lunatic Alex Jones, everything wrong in the world is the Jews’ fault. The Jews control all of the banks, the media, hell, they control everything. Only Ron Paul is pure.

It’s a friggin; cult!

This is pretty typical of how Herr Doktor Paul’s cult thinks:

Notice they don’t differentiate between Team Obama, who hates the Jews more than they do, and is actively working towards their destruction, by making sure the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power all over the Middle East, and Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin, of course does support Israel. In fact she’s kept a small Israeli flag in her office for years. One even flew in her governor’s office.

According to these loons BTW, Sarah is a front for all of the boogie men from the Build-a-Burgers, Council on Foreign Relations, and what have you. Never mind Sarah is more of an outsider, and a REAL Libertarian, than Herr Doktor Paul, or those he surrounds himself with.

The Weekly Standard exposes what Ron Paul really is:

The Company Ron Paul Keeps

The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.

Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”

While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

There’s a lot more that you can read right here.

Of course, Herr Doktor Paul’s crazy-eyed supporters will have you believe he never wrote these newsletters, or even saw them, though he’s listed as editor of them. Or maybe someone from the government snuck in during the night, on coffee break from setting up the FEMA camp down the street, and planted all of those crazy racist, anti-Semitic rants. Which ever, I’m sure it’s the Jew’s fault somehow.

No one documents Nazis and anti-Semites better than Pamela Geller. She’s rounded up some of Herr Doktor Paul’s newsletters and posted them in all of their glory. Check em out here.

Ron Paul is a despicable human being, and a cancer on the Republican Party. He and his bat-shit crazy cult-like followers are why the democrat party, the party that created the KKK, and had a Grand Exalted Cyclops [Senator Robert Byrd D-West Virginia] as one of it’s respected elders. The party of Jim Crow. The Party of Bull Conner. The party that institutionalized racism in this country, the democrats, are able to paint Republicans as racist, and get away with it.

I’m sick of looking for ways to justify Ron Paul, or his supporters. Sick of hearing about how great he is on the economy.

Like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul is a con man. A fake, a phony, and a fraud.

Though Herr Doktor Paul rails against government spending, he was one of only four Republicans to request earmarks in the 2011 budget. $157 million worth, as a matter of fact. He requested $398 million in 2010’s fiscal year budget.

Like Newt and his rationalizations, Ron Paul has a great scam going. He attaches his earmark requests to bills that are certain to pass, and become law, then he sits back and votes “nay” on the legislation, so he is on the record as voting against the spending. Of course, he cheerfully collects the money afterwards.

Ricochet has a list of Paul’s earmarked projects here. Conservatives Network has even more.

You know, I have mixed feelings on earmarks. After all, the federal government takes our tax dollars, gets their cut off the top, and then sends some of it back to the states for things IT deems fit. How else is a community to benefit from it’s own money, if their representative in government, their Congressman, doesn’t make it happen?

That said, it should be a transparent process. Something where all members vote on each item, and some sort of due diligence is done. Far too often these earmarks go to family members or cronies to prop up their businesses. Some are finally caught and some are not. Most times it doesn’t matter anyway as no one goes to prison.

If Government had less involvement in the way cities and states conduct themselves, we’d have fewer of these problems to start with.

The problem with Ron Paul is he tries to have it both ways. He tries to claim to be all about the Constitution, and rails against government spending, especially pork spending through earmarks, when in fact, he’s one of the biggest porkers in Washington! He’s a hypocrite of the highest order.

Couple this with the liability of being a vile, nasty racist, and it’s time for Ron Paul to take his act and go home.

There is no room in polite society for someone like him. He stains the Conservative brand, and reinforces all of the lies the left tells about the patriotic members of the Tea Party.

Ron Paul is a despicable human being who sides with the most vile elements of society. There is simply no place for him in the Conservative movement, or the Tea Party. No place at all.


Filed under In The News, Politics

UNBELIEVABLE! Barack Obama Fundraising Off Killing bin Laden

By Gary P Jackson

Let me get this straight, we can’t show photos of a dead bin Laden, because it might “inflame the Muslim street” but Obama can run out and immediately start raising money for his re-election campaign off of it?


Oh, and it gets better. He’s not just raising money, he’s acting like he pulled the trigger himself!

The Obama campaign has purchased the domain: www.gutsycall.com and when you click on it, it re-directs you to Obama’s campaign website. This is the height of douchebaggery, especially since Obama had to be FORCED to actually make that “gutsy call“!

Here’s a bit of Q&A courtesy of Pat Dollard: [emphasis mine]

Note:This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.

This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of.

Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy.

Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid.

This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound.

Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk.

During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval.

Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

There is much, much more here.

So let me get this right. It was Leon Panetta, not Barack Obama who put this deal together, and made the “gutsy call.” As usual, Obama was voting “present.” The only difference is this time he had a real leader calling him out and forcing him to act. And it was Valerie Jarrett in charge of the Oval Office, not Obama.

This is simply amazing to me.

In what amounted to a West Wing coup d’état, Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, and General David Petraeus, all forced Obama to act. Even more interesting is they were ready to just do it, and suffer the consequences later, had Obama’s dithering continued. .

No doubt General Petraeus and Secretary Gates understood it had to be done, and both Panetta and Secretary Clinton are well aware Bill Clinton had bin Laden where he could have been killed, and passed up at least two chances to get it done. One wonders just how different history would be had Clinton killed bin Laden years before he had the chance to pull off the 9/11 attacks.

One thing about it, I guess we all know now why Gates decided to “pursue other opportunities” and both Panetta and Petraeus suddenly found themselves in better jobs!

It’s troubling enough that Obama had to be forced into making this call, and it’s despicable for Obama’s campaign to shamelessly raise money off of the deal. It’s totally unacceptable for this little Chicago street thug to take credit for any of it.

This reminds me of the ridiculous events the communist Russians stage to make Vladimir Putin look like a badass:

Obama is a weakling who evidently lets Valerie Jarrett call all the shots. No wonder he has so much time for golf!

Let me leave asking this: How do you think the “Muslim street” will feel knowing Obama is using the death of bin Laden to raise money to get re-elected?

Disgraceful … Shameless … Bastard


Filed under In The News, Politics

Despicable: Barack Obama Orders Pensions Cut Off To WWII Veterans

Once again, Barack Obama proves he is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief to our armed forces. In a continuing despicable act, Obama is refusing to honor WWII veterans who fought for our nation in it’s darkest hours.

From the McClatchy News Service:

WASHINGTON — In a strongly worded message to Congress outlining its priorities for a military spending bill, the Obama administration today said it disapproved of including money for pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard.

The Guardsmen are among those assigned to protect Alaska from the Japanese during World War II.

The Army decided this year to no longer count service in the Guard in calculating the military’s 20-year minimum for retirement pay, although it still counts for military benefits. As a result, their pensions were decreased in January.

An estimated 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit formed in 1942 to protect Alaska, then a territory, from attack. The 26 men have enough other military service to reach the 20-year minimum for retirement pay but would lose it if the Territorial Guard service doesn’t count.

A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate allows the former Guard members count their service as part of active military duty, and it reinstates the payments.

State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year to fill the pay gap until Congress made a permanent fix, but the White House said Friday it didn’t think it was “appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, sponsored the fix, called the administration move “deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive.” The legislation honors 26 elderly Native people who are the few remaining survivors of a military unit that served the country with valor, Murkowski said.

“The administration’s justification, which is that the legislation will set the precedent of treating service as a state employee as federal service, defies logic and history,” she said in a statement. “Sixty-two years after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, the Obama administration minimizes the contribution of this gallant unit to America’s success in World War II by calling its service ‘state service.’ “

This is beyond the pale, and just shows Obama’s continual disregard for what has made America the greatest nation on earth. To diminish these brave Alaska Natives as “state employees” is to diminish all of the brave men and women who served their nation in all sorts of ways during WWI.

For those that don’t know, the Japanese attacked and invaded Alaska’s Aleutian Islands at the same time the battle of Midway was about to take place. It was part diversion, part payback for Doolittle’s bombing of Tokyo.

Above: Japanese bombing of Dutch Harbor, 4 June 1942…

Historical Photo – Public Domain: Naval Historical Center

Department of the United States Navy

Above: Japanese transport burning after U.S. air attack on Kiska Harbor, 18 June 1942…

Historical Photo – Public Domain; Naval Historical Center

Department of the United States Navy

This was a tragic bit of history for Alaskans, more of which you can read here and here.

From Wikipedia:

The Alaska Territorial Guard (ATG) or Eskimo Scouts was a military reserve force component of the US Army, organized in 1942 in response to attacks on American soil in Hawaii and Alaska by Japan during World War II. The ATG operated until 1947. 6,368 volunteers who served without pay were enrolled from 107 communities throughout Alaska in addition to a paid staff of 21, according to an official roster.

The ATG brought together for the first time into a joint effort members of these ethnic groups: Aleut, Athabaskan, European American, Inupiaq, Haida, Tlingit, Tsimshian, Yupik, and most likely others. In later years, all members of some native units scored expert sharpshooter rankings. Among the 27 or more women members were at least one whose riflery skills exceeded the men. The ages of members at enrollment ranged from 80 years old to as young as twelve. (both extremes occurring mostly in sparsely populated areas)

Two things stick out in my mind. One, these 6,368 Alaskan Territorial Guards, of which the 26 men being denied by Barack Obama are part of, served their nation during war time, for NO PAY.

Second, the situation was so dire that old men and children all pitched in.

You can read more here.

Another historic perspective can be read here:

The Alaska Territorial Guard: A Debt of Honor Unpaid. As this article points out towards the end:

In 2000, largely due to efforts by former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, a bill was signed into law ordering the Secretary of Defense to issue Honorable Discharges to all members of the Alaska Territorial Guard. The bill was intended to repay the debt of honor we as a nation owe these people, these Americans, and provided many of the surviving members (now in their 80’s and many living far below the poverty line) with retirement pay and survivor’s benefits and medial care.

However history views Ted Stevens it must be noted that he was largely responsible for righting a dishonorable and inexcusable injustice. However, the story of the ATG doesn’t end there – most of the elderly surviving members of the ATG live in remote and inaccessible locations. Finding them was long and difficult.

In 2003 Colonel Bob Goodman USA(ret), undertook the effort to find and assist the remaining members of the ATG, at first funded by the state and later out of his own pocket. So far he and his people have located over 150 former members of the ATG, and they estimate there are several hundred more – and they continue their efforts to this very day.

Many of those located in the last five years have since died of old age. For those who remain, the benefits provided aren’t much, some medical care and a couple hundred dollars a month, but for folks who now live far below the poverty line in villages where gasoline costs more than $10 per gallon – those benefits mean the difference between life and death.

Those benefits, that mere pittance in retirement pay, would seem to be the least we can do for those forgotten veterans of that long ago conflict.

It would seem to be the very least we could do.

But it’s not.

It turns out we could actually do less.

It turns out that the Army could suddenly decide, say yesterday in fact, to reinterpret the law to read that these men and women of the Alaska Territorial Guard, these men and woman who came to defend our nation in its time of need, these men and women who fought bravely for a flag not even their own, who built the roads and the airfields and the hospitals and the bridges and who rescued downed airmen and stranded sailors and braved the cold and the isolation and the horror of war – these men and women – are not, in fact, entitled to even that small effort.

That’s right. The Army has decided to cut off retirement pay for the twenty-six surviving members of the ATG. Twenty-six, and applications from thirty-seven more identified by Colonel Bob Goodwin and his people have been suspended. Apparently we can not afford to take care of even this small handful of people, this small handful of veterans, this small handful of Alaskans, this small handful of Americans.

However, in a good hearted move, the Army will not seek to recoup past payments.

Big of them, wouldn’t you say?

It goes without saying that this issue has been boiling for some time. Senator Stevens indeed had worked to get these brave WWII veterans, these brave Native Americans, their due.

In what some might say was odd timing, or Chicago style politics, just two days after Barack Obama had taken the Oath of Office as Commander-In-Chief, ABC News reported:

The Army has decided to cut off retirement pay for veterans of a largely Native militia formed to guard the territory of Alaska from the threat of Japanese attack during World War II.

The change means 26 surviving members of the Alaska Territorial Guard — most in their 80s and long retired — will lose as much as $557 in monthly retirement pay, a state veterans officer said Thursday. The payments end Feb. 1.

Applications for retirement pay from 37 others have been suspended.

The state is pursuing a remedy for “these brave Alaskans, who did so much for the cause of freedom during a time of great national peril,” Gov. Sarah Palin said.

The action comes almost a decade after Congress passed a law qualifying time served in the unpaid guard as active federal service. The Army agreed in 2004 to grant official military discharge certificates to members or their survivors.

An Army official said the law was misinterpreted. The law applies to military benefits, including medical benefits, but not retirement pay, said Lt. Col. Richard McNorton, with the Army’s human resources command in Alexandria, Va.

“The focus is to follow the law,” he said. “We can’t choose whether to follow the law.”

The Army doesn’t intend to seek to recoup past pay, he said.

About 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit called up from 1942 to 1947 to scout patrols, build military airstrips and perform other duties. But only a fraction had enough other military service to reach the 20-year requirement for retirement pay.

Among those who did is 88-year-old Paul Kiunya in the western Alaska village of Kipnuk. Kiunya was 16 when he joined the territorial guard and worked in communications, reporting by radio any unusual noises or the direction of aircraft, including some Japanese planes he spotted.

“We did not get one cent being in the territorial guard,” he said. “And we worked hard.”

Kiunya — who later put in 22 years in the National Guard and another decade in the Guard reserves — will lose more than $358 a month in his retirement package because of the Army’s decision. With gasoline in his village at almost $10 a gallon, that’s a huge amount to lose.

For her part, Governor Sarah Palin, in her role as Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska Defense Force, the modern day equivalent to the Territorial Guard, signed SB 89 which funded, these pensions until 2010.

For those that don’t know, the Alaska Defense Force is a federally recognized state militia, that trains as an auxiliary police force, as well as a military defense force, and is part of Homeland Security’s readiness plan, and is under the command of the Governor of Alaska.

This situation is incredibly disturbing. All indications are these brave WWII veterans served Alaska and the nation with honor. To purposely cut these aged men off, in the twilight of their lives, goes against everything America stands for. In fact, as this cuts off not only a substantial part of their paycheck, but other benefits, such as medical, one might even say this is sort of a death panel, especially knowing that winter is coming, and heating fuel is quite expensive in Alaska.

I can’t speculate what makes Barack Obama such a heartless and cruel man. I do know that once again, Obama’s radical, communist upbringing has shown it’s self front and center. Obama must really hate America, and Americans to pull a stunt like this.

Obama should be ashamed of himself, but I fear that is an emotion he is incapable of.

What can you do?

You can call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that this dog just don’t hunt! Tell them cutting off pay to these brave WWII veterans is inhumane and un-American. Our veterans deserve better.

You can also call Barack Obama at the White House: (202) 456-1414

Tell Obama this cannot stand. Tell Obama this will not stand!


Filed under In The News, Politics