A brief written update from a Republican insider remarking on political activity as lawmakers return from the Thanksgiving holiday.
( “You ain’t never too old to learn new ways of being stupid. )
_______________________________
Hope you had a great holiday and were able to have time to be with family and friends. You need to be rested up because I really think we might see some political fireworks pretty soon.
You asked me to give you some updates on topics of the day or the week here at ECS. (Capitol Building)
The halls are not quite as busy as normal, though more bodies will be coming in over the next day or two. As far as what is the big topic of conversation I guess I would say its kind of a version of “Norquist Day” up here. Reid is putting an enormous amount of pressure to get a couple high profile Republicans to break the tax pledge that so many of them signed over the years. Am seeing a few of the ATR reps running around here looking not so happy. I don’t really have an issue with Norquist or his Americans for Tax Reform organization but do believe it has become more of a burden for legislators. Norquist is very good at intimidation, but that leaves Republicans feeling pinched from both sides now. The Obama-media machine and the Norquist no new taxes pledge. Tough spot. It does seem like there will be some kind of showdown on this soon and I did hear that Boehner is preparing to give cover to Republicans who break away from the pledge and his office and Reid’s office were working together on some version of that over the weekend. That’s rumor mill stuff but from some people I would consider pretty reputable on info. coming from either the Speaker or the Majority Leader’s neck of the woods.
I’m hoping that Boehner does some kind agreement to just eliminate tax deductions for higher incomes, and not cave on the tax rate, but hear he is getting wobbly. If he goes along fully with Reid, there will be a revolt inside the party. I know of no fewer than 12 Republicans who have promised that and they say a lot more have promised to join them. Boehner knows this of course, so he is trying to come up with a compromise that won’t satisfy anyone while at the same time not pissing off everyone. Now that is the kind of non-leadership thing I was telling you about before that is killing the party, so if there is a revolt inside the party, maybe that would be a good thing. That possibility leads me to Cantor, who I know does not totally trust Boehner’s instincts or loyalty to fiscal conservatism. So there’s a whole bunch of us watching Cantor closely right now for any clues, but very little info is coming from his office which always means they are cooking up something. I wish I could tell you what that is, but at this point, nobody around me knows. Someone suggested Cantor was preparing to challenge Boehner for the Speakers position. I will file that one away in the crazy conspiracy department. No way that happens. Not any time soon anyways. Not that part of me wishes it were true, but I know there isn’t the numbers in Cantor’s favor to pull something like that off. Unless he has the support of Norquist? Now I’m going down the conspiracy trail. Sorry about that.
I have kind of a funny story that has been going around. If you saw that weird press conference that Pelosi did before the holiday where she said something about them “having the gavel”, meaning the leadership, you know what the comment is referencing. So Pelosi’s office set up that press conference with a bunch of other Democrat women. She is leaning hard on the war on women thing but not against Republicans. She’s actually trying to use it against the president to get his support for her desire ot remain on as minority leader. And, she’s actually been telling some of her staff she might be Speaker again in 2014. Even people in her own office are rolling their eyes about that. And not just because there are a lot of Dems in the party who can’t stand her, but because she is suffering from “lapses” more and more these days. A lot of people don’t realize she is almost in her mid-70s now and I’v also been told, enjoys more than a few drinks. Anyways, after that presser, I think it might have been the next day, there is a luncheon and some of the same women who walked on that stage with Pelosi for her announcement were yucking it up about how awkward it was when the former Speaker said they still “had the gavel”. One of them leaned in to another one sitting across the table and said, and this is apparently an honest to God quote, “Just goes to show you ain’t never too old to learn new ways of being stupid.” It was said loud enough for the whole table to hear, and after some of them put their hands to their mouths in shock, they all started to laugh and the joke was spreading all over the Capitol for the rest of the day. Normally I might feel sorry for someone once the joke gets back to them, but in this case, Nancy Pelosi is one of the nastiest and mean spirited people I have ever encountered, so I will just chalk it up to karma and leave it at that.
One last thing because I know you are waiting for some kind of news on Benghazi. There is a lot of talk but nothing concrete that I feel comfortable sharing with you specifically on that. I’ve been keeping my ear to the ground on news from the McCain office, but I was told this morning that it’s McConnell who has been doing some heavy lifting behind the scenes. I can say this for sure, the word back is that anyone and everyone from the Obama White House is telling people they don’t care. They are so confident in being able to shrug off any challenge, any accusation, basically anything and anyone who tries to hold them accountable. Apparently one recent meeting over proposed Benghazi hearings between a person from the DoS and Republicans ended with a promise by DoS that if needed, the whole thing would just get buried under Executive Privilege – “just like the gunrunning.” Now I have to think that I’m not the only one whose ears perked up when I heard about that comment. First it shows how arrogant the Obama administration has become. Second, it seems to tie in the Department of State with Fast and Furious, which was something a lot of people were whispering about back at the time, but no real concrete proof was given. It was all just DoJ related. But it also made me wonder about something you and some others in the alternative media talked about and that is the possibility that it was gunrunning going on between the Obama government and the Libyan militants that was being covered up in Benghazi. I don’t think it is a too far gone notion to at least consider the possibility that Barack Obama was handing over military grade weapons to known terrorist militants, and that some of those weapons were then used to kill those four Americans. That’s just me speculating here, but I plan on asking that question of a few others around here and get back to you with what they think. I asked that you give me a few weeks to try and get something rolling with Benghazi. This week will be devoted to doing that.
Almost forgot. Know I said one last thing, but this time I mean it. Thought you would like to know that a friend of yours was up this way recently. I wish I would have known they were in town but I missed seeing them by about an hour. So they must be doing ok enough to hang around here for a while. Good news maybe? If I find out what they were here for and how their mood was I’ll pass it on to you unless you think they don’t want me to do that. Your call.
-RI
______________________
Oh man…I wish I could see the world through your eyes for just a day…idealistic son-of-a-b-tch…No disrespect son…but you don’t know ME. You really don’t…you don’t know the things…you don’t know what I’m capable of…what…Jesus Lord…the things I’ve DONE.” -INSIDER
Not sure I like this Republican Insider yet but that pic and story about Pelosi cracked me up! She was the one that rammed through Obamacare. Lying pile of garbage is what she is.
How did this Norquest get so powerful? Is he a good guy or a bad guy?
Norquist is a VERY bad guy. He’s a stealth Islamist. Read this: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/norquist-loses-his-grip/
Norquist makes Pubs sign some pledge not to raise taxes. Thing is taxes still get raised so not sure what its all about???? He has a fat head. Republicans are jokes. That is why Dems always win. It is a party of racist whack jobs who believe every right wing nutso conspiracy that comes their way. Just read some of the pathetic comments by this site’s readers. LOL.
Thanks.
Asshole. Crawl back under your rock now.
Go worship your messiah, Chicago Jesus, you fucking idiot.
Typical neonazi pond scum called a Republican. See. As bad as Obama was in the first term, people look at idiots like you and know it could be a lot worse if you were in charge. So you stay this little weird minority group who lives on far right nutjob blogs rocking back and forth and pulling out your hair. Keep rocking loser! Hahahahahaah
So why are you here?
The story of the troll under the bridge comes to mind.
I hear they pay for you guys to go on conservative sites to stir up trouble.
You have to be a real low down to find your jollies that way.
Your Lord and Savior beckons.
Neonazis?
Wake up, fucktard. My boys are the proud great grandsons of a prisoner of Stalag 17b.
In celebration of this fact, my boys have been killing Nazis in Call of Duty cyberspace since before they could walk.
Don’t you dare call conservatives Neonazis when you don’t even understand basic history.
Guess which party was behind Dredd-Scott?
Democrats, bitch.
Guess which party refused to grant a single “Yea” vote to free black slaves?
Democrats, dumbass.
What about George Wallace?
Democrat, you fucking idiot.
How about Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King AND his dad?
REPUBLICANS.
Wake up.
Take a look at Obama’s foreign policy, with regard to Israel. He is hastening their destruction, intentionally…just as Marx himself would have done. Marx referred to Jews as ‘itzig’ and ‘itzig-Juden’…’niggers’ and ‘nigger-Jews’. Did your political science professor mention that?
You have bought into the progressive narrative…hook, line and sinker.
Why don’t you do some REAL research, and stop wasting our time with your trite bullshit poly-sci 101 dogma?
UM,
Email me this Guy’s IP address. I’m certain I can find him.
why would you bother wasting your time with a bunch of right-wing nutjobs?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Truth is the greatest threat to a Liberal…or a Marxist.
You are nothing more than chicken shit, libtard.
Let’s look at it this way. If we are visited by this kind of poster, it means we are getting enough relevance to be worth the Alinsky treatment. So I’d say this little group… not so little anymore.
@NameBM
BAMMMM…spot on!!!
LORAX,
This must be a pretty good site if a saul alinsky pentagon blogger has to come waste their precious communist, marxist pro NWO time.
Boehner can kiss his job goodbye …if he does….
And both sides are capable of thowing his speakership ass under the bus with blackmail…Same trash…different garbage men
“Norquist is very good at intimidation, but that leaves Republicans feeling pinched from both sides now. The Obama-media machine and the Norquist no new taxes pledge. Tough spot. It does seem like there will be some kind of showdown on this soon and I did hear that Boehner is preparing to give cover to Republicans who break away from the pledge and his office and Reid’s office were working together on some version of that over the weekend.”
Didn’t Boehner just come out and say no new taxes? I am sure that is what I heard over the weekend. If he is actually making a deal with Reid well talk about asking the fox to guard the hen house! Yikes!
“Almost forgot. Know I said one last thing, but this time I mean it. Thought you would like to know that a friend of yours was up this way recently. I wish I would have known they were in town but I missed seeing them by about an hour. So they must be doing ok enough to hang around here for a while. Good news maybe? If I find out what they were here for and how their mood was I’ll pass it on to you unless you think they don’t want me to do that. Your call.”
Was this about WHI or the Old Man? An update from either one would be great.
I took it to mean the Old Man.
It was WHI. UM has not heard from him since right after the election. And he was the connection to begin the RI interviews in the first place.
I don’t see it like that at all. Seems to be a very level headed person who wants the party to go back to real conservative Reagan type values. They are kind of boring though. Sorry UM!
That is ok by me. And I like the idea of a Cantor vs Boehner thing going on. Always liked Cantor a lot more than John cry me a river Boehner. Although I also think there does need to be some kind of deal on taxes and immigration. Get that stuff off the table. Ronald Reagan compromised on both of those things. Thoogh maybe some people in here don’t like Reagan either. They seem to have their heads full of everyone must be like me or they are evil kind of thoughts. 
Reagan let millions of Americans die of AIDS. He was the worst president of the 20th Century. Go ahead an embrace him. Loser.
What?????
Don’t bother, Kat. I’m guessing he/she/it is a high school or 1st year college student. A damning indictment of the public education system.
He’s likely a paid Obot.
Your comments peg you as a paid disinformation agent.
Won’t work here. Be gone.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/pay-for-comments-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-internet-shill_102012
At that time, during Reagan’s presidency, AIDS primarily affected a very tiny portion of a the population (1/2 of 1 percent), a very specific demographic and not a lot was known about it. They did know that unsafe, gay sex was the reason for it spreading. It wasn’t until well into the 90′s that AIDS became a major issue.
And don’t forget, that unlike many cancers, Alzheimers, etc., AIDS was, and is totally preventable with a lifestyle change.
Again, like so many democrats, you want the government to take responsibility for your own bad behavior. Why should the government have to throw the tax dollars of others to those who choose to create their own problems, and continue the same actions even after being warned?
Democrats are like 10 year olds, who still want their mothers to breast feed them.
So, now how is this Reagan’s fault again?
Hey creepo, you’re hitting a painful nerve with me on this issue… my dad died from AIDS which he got from a transfusion at Stanford Hospital in 1982 (they didn’t test blood donors for HIV until 1983, thus there was no recourse for my parents and he lived with much suffering for he and my mom until 1989).
You are the real loser. Now, go away and don’t butt your sick head here again!
My previous post was intended for Lorax the a**hole obot.
Sorry.
Don’t they require History 101 anymore? Had you even been born yet, when Reagan was president?
Norquist is great on “low taxes” but he’s terrible on SHARIA LAW.
He married a mozzie (aka muslim) and pushes islam every chance he gets.
Hey Norquist, here’s my motto:
“If the victims of islam were more ‘islamophobic,’ maybe they’d still be alive.”
American Thinker..A little background on Norquist..his Iran lobby connections..and his wife Salah…a Palestinian Muslim….more kabuki going on in DC.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/grover_norquist_and_the_iran_lobby.html
@Nona:
Yep, connecting the dots is always helpful…often times, what appears to be conservative is just a diversion [troll]…***sigh***
Comment about WH, Obama just didn’t care re Benghazi, etc. – reminds me of this on another site:
“The only society that the sociopathic psychotic Obama wants to create is one straight from the bowels of hell made in the warped image of the Marxist Socialist totalitarian State that Comrade Obama was weaned on by a litany of America-hating communists where only the ruling politburo flourish while the serf class that they demand to control is left to languish in misery as they laugh hysterically at the impotence of those who don’t have the guts to stop their willful destruction of a free America from within, or worse, couldn’t care less!”
And….”There is a lot of talk but nothing concrete” — isn’t THAT THE TRUTH !!!
Troll Alert. Time to mow down a few trees!
Hey UM, google this and prepare to be creeped out: Jamie Foxx delivered a speech calling Barack Obama is “Lord and Savior.”
The cult aspect is kicking into high gear.
Hahahahahhahaha. I will give Ulsterdork credit. His old insider was on the case better than anyone I knew of. So yes I know he was the real deal. But he LOST LOST LOST the election and is now in hiding. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH Because the Pubs put up an idiot 1% who Obama hammered into oblivion!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA And now this place is just being visited by far right neocons with more time than brains. Sorry losers. Obama has a second term and theres not a damn thing you can do about it. HAHAHAHAHHAHAH
Neocons? You mean like sending troops to libya with no congressional approval? What about troops in Africa? Syria, CIA gun running to arm the muslim brotherhood? Overthrowing egypt for the muslim brotherhood? Oh, that was a freedom movement you say? Right….I guess Morsi contradicted you on that.
Do you choose to ignore these facts or are you addicted to ignorance and being a coward?
It must be nice to sit on such a high perch with your pro sharia law and communist beliefs.
The problem is, it’s your soul thats in jeopardy, not ours.
While WE stand for something, you stand against everything.
Good luck with GOD pentagon bot. I see your face melting like raiders of the lost ark.
I don’t think you quite understand.
It’s not about who won the election or not. It’s not the contest that any normal person cares about–it’s the fate of the nation. You may want to do your homework and discover what typically happens to the useful idiots in times like these…they’re ALWAYS the first to go.
Sleep tight, fuckie.
YAY!!! Finally, something is being done re voter machine fraud (which I still maintain was the cause for our “loss”). Please pray and do what you can to PUSH investigations into this. We MUST fix !!!!
“A state lawmaker in Maryland has asked the FBI to impound two voting machines used in the 2012 election to determine whether there was a malfunction or something nefarious going on.
“I just feel it is my duty to try to get to the bottom of this,” state Delegate Kathryn Afzali told WND today. “We’re not making any accusations. The Board of Elections are good people. They have checks and balances … but we want to make sure everything is fair.”
She said a number of people contacted her after the Nov. 6 election to report that they pressed a touch-screen button for GOP candidate Mitt Romney, but the vote registered for Barack Obama.
WND has reported a number of first-hand accounts of similar anomalies during the election. One touch-screen technician reported that voters in another state were getting error messages on their touch-screens when they tried to vote for Romney.
Also, suspiciously, a number of precincts reported a 100-percent vote for Obama, and some even reported beyond 100 percent.
“My request [to the FBI] is … I want them to take these machines. Let an FBI computer expert analyze them,” she said.
She said that among those who contacted her with concerns were two officials, including a state lawmaker who personally experienced a vote machine changing his vote three times to the party whose agenda he opposed.
The lawmaker told her that his computer background left him confident that the problem was beyond a technical glitch, and he insisted that the election judge take the machine out of service and lock it up.
Another concern was raised by Carroll County Commissioner Richard Rothschild. who said it’s critical that the machines be analyzed properly to determine what happened.
“We need to freeze them in their current state, not wipe out data,” he said.
He said his constituent reported the same scenario as has been reported: hitting the touch-screen button for Romney but finding that that it registered for Obama.
Rothschild said it’s a major problem that has to be addressed in order for Americans to continue trusting their election system.
He said the constituent noticed the vote changes on the summary screen.
“It showed Obama as being selected,” Rothschild told WND, even though his constituent reported voting for the GOP ticket.
“After talking with a few other people, this concern seems to be increasing,” Rothschild told WND. “There are just two possible answers. Either he made a mistake, or something caused that machine to switch the vote.”
He said given that his constituent has experience with computers, the contention that he didn’t know how to use the machine seems a stretch.
“I know how easy it would be to introduce a single spurious line of code,” Rothschild told WND, noting a programmer could easily instruct the machine to change the vote periodically, so a routine test wouldn’t reveal any problems.
He said he was told the county had no jurisdiction over the issue and that it would be up to the state, which is why he discussed the concerns with Afzali.
“It’s very scary,” Rothschild told WND. “It creates a sense of helplessness and hopelessness.”
That, in turn, he said, results in people feeling desperate about their failure to impact government.
“If American people feel they cannot trust their voting system, there’s the possibility of more desperate action,” he said. “There are a number of possibilities [for reaction] in nullifications, secession, including throwing off such governments.
“If people think their voting processes do not work, [if] they conclude they are not being afforded constitutional protections, they may conclude their only option is to throw off such government,” he said.
He said the forensics of voting machine examination would be very important, but a good investigatory review could provide a lot of answers.
“We have all seen little pieces of the problem,” he said.
But to determine what is a problem, he said some sort of overview perspective would be needed.
Not only do authorities need to do a review, future elections need to be done so that every voter is given a printed copy of his or her own vote. The copies could be compiled by clerks to provide a point of reference if questions arise, he said.
Afzali told WND that because she’s on the state elections committee, a number of people came directly to her with their complaints.
She said the two machines that were identified now are locked up with all the other equipment, but she’s asked the FBI step in and take custody of them.
WND previously reported in U.S. Rep. Allen West’s re-election fight in Florida, a surge of thousands of votes went to his opponent late in the evening.
“If we do not have integrity in our election process then we don’ t have the exceptionalism as a constitutional republic, we don’t have a rule of law,” West said.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/fbi-asked-to-probe-obama-vote-changing-machines/
Great, the FBI… aren’t they under Eric Holder’s jurisdiction? I’m sure he’ll get right on that voter fraud thing.
IMPORTANT !!! UM, all – latest from Insider at Canada Free Press re Benghazi. UM – ANOTHER to send RI????
“This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.
DH: It’s been a while since we’ve discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately?
II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest. Every politician, whether it’s a congressman senator, diplomat, or their spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not. There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The reason they’re still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there.
DH: Let’s go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi?
II: As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest, one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw attention to what was going on there.
DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues?
II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly, additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the operation was already winding down.
DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.
II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons – gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.
What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.
The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi. That was the ‘choke point’ of the weapons being shipped out. Remember the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among ‘humanitarian aid.’ By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40 million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya.
From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is to destabilize the Assad government.
Why Syria, why not Iran?
II: It’s both, but Syria is the primary target here for this operation. First, look at the bigger picture, look at the so-called “Arab Spring.” Who benefits and by default, who doesn’t? Who is the architect for what’s going on throughout the Middle East and North Africa? Whose agenda is being implemented? To specifically address Benghazi, though, look at the bigger picture here and what is trying to be accomplished.
The Obama administration is playing the role of Saudi Arabia’s private army. I think if Americans knew this, they would be outraged. Our service men and women are being sold out as mercenaries for the wants and desires of the Royal family, for the Saudi’s interests. It’s about religious dominance and oil. Who is really benefitting from, say, what’s going on in Egypt? Mubarek is out, and the Muslim Brotherhood is in. Who does that benefit? Saudi Arabia.
Look at what we see happening in Egypt. Destabilization. Do you think the Russians want that? Hell no. Syria is Russia’s red line in the sand, as you earlier wrote. If Syria is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood by the actions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others in this administration, what happens? Well, it will have an adverse impact on Russia from a military standpoint. They will likely lose access to their Mediterranean deep water port in Syria, which is Tartus.
But think further – three dimensionally. Russia is still the world’s largest oil producer, and that’s Russia’s primary source of income. Then there’s Turkey, adjacent to Syria. A large amount of Russian oil and gas, consumed by the West, flows through Turkey, which is also a player in this operation.
So, the destabilization of Syria which is exactly what Obama and Clinton are trying to do, presents a direct military and economic threat to Russia. Assad at least has kept things in check in Syria. Can you imagine Assad being replaced by someone like Morsi? That would strike at the very heart of Russia’s economic health and military capabilities. Think of what’s at stake here. Do Americans want a regional war? World War III? Has Obama or Clinton asked the American people if this is what they want?
Make no mistake, we are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia. The U.S., NATO and other allies are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and Russia.
What about Assad’s war crimes?
Assad is no angel, but don’t be fooled by the death toll attributed to him. Now this is important. Remember the first Gulf War? In the run up to Desert Storm, a young woman testified before the Human Rights Caucus – she only testified under her first name, which was Nayirah. Remember that she testified that Iraqi soldiers were taking infants from incubators in Kuwait, leaving them to die? Her testimony was supposedly confirmed by Amnesty International. Her testimony went viral, and every war hawk in the U.S. government cited her testimony, saying we needed to right the wrongs, the inhumanity. It was all one big lie!
After Desert Storm, it was revealed that Nayirah’s last name was Al-Sabah, and she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Her testimony was part of a publicity campaign organized by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which was run by Hill & Knowlton, a PR firm out of New York. People must learn the back story.
So we see a body count attributed to Assad. Who’s doing the killing, Assad’s people? Maybe at times, but the Free Syrian Army and other groups are doing most of the slaughter. It’s one huge ‘false flag’ operation and the media is selling it hard. And Americans are buying it, just like the testimony of the girl from Kuwait.
It’s one big lie being told by Obama, Clinton, Rice, and others. Many Americans are buying the lie, and the media is selling the lie. The people behind this are laughing at us. Don’t you get it? They’re laughing at us.
And do you want to know what’s at stake? Four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Forty thousand have been killed so far in Syria. Tens of thousands of Syrian people have become refugees. Why? For what? To advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. For oil.
You know, the so-called right wing establishment were all up in arms about Obama’s submissive bow to the Saudi King. Where are they now? Where’ the outrage that the body count will be much greater than Forty thousand? It is anticipated that if the Obama plan succeeds, not only will America be committed to yet another war, but the body count could be as high as FOUR MILLION. Christians, among others, will be slaughtered. This could trigger a third world war, it’s that serious.
What are Russia and Iran doing? Certainly, they must be fighting back.
Benghazi was a strike against us, the Obama-Clinton agenda. A visible strike, and I’ll explain more about this shortly, because there are events I will point out that will put it all into perspective. But think of it this way. How did we successfully collapse the Soviet Union? I mean, what was the last straw? We attacked their currency – the Ruble. They’re still stinging from that, and Putin was in the KGB at the time. Do you think he forgot about that?
So, how do, or will Russia and Iran strike back if Obama and Clinton continue this insanity? Militarily? Possibly in regional conflicts, but to take us out, to stop us, what is the one area where we are very vulnerable? It’s our economy – our dollar. What’s our dollar tied to? Not gold or silver anymore, and some say it’s not tied to anything. Well, that’s not quite correct. It’s tied to OIL. The free-flow of oil.
Oil transactions everywhere in the world, including Russia and China, are made with U.S. dollars. We buy their oil with our dollars, and they return with those same paper dollars and employ Americans by buying our goods and services. As Michael Reagan wrote: “[t]his system is also crucial to the security of our diplomatic and legal infrastructure, which is ultimately backed by our military. It’s the core of our foreign policy.” He also wrote that “any attack on the free flow of oil is an attack on the dollar. Any attack on the dollar is an attack on our ability to project power and protect Western democracies, economies, and ideals. God have mercy on us all if that attack is successful!”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346
You beat me to it!
Was just going to post this.
Thanks for the posting. It explains so much. First the distinction between consulate and CIA operational center. Extremely important and making perfect sense.
I travelled a lot and US consulates are always in “good” neighboroods, yet I have never encountered one in the Burbs.
And the geopolitics of oil. The continuity for the protection of Saudia Arabia’s interests from Bush to Obama. (Obama’s Harvard tuitions were paid by a member of the Saudia Royal Family thru a set-up of fundations). If Romney was sincere in making us energy independant, there was NOWAY he was going to be allowed to win the elections, no matter what the electorate had chosen.
And the proxy against Putin.
I am going to enjoy every minute of this Hollidays season because it will probably be the last one will have at peace for some times.
Some of that article is quite explanatory, but I disagree with one critical point. Turkey is promoting the Free Syrian Army. Erdogan is Muslim Brotherhood; AKP is Brotherhood, like so many in the FSA. It is the Turkish CHP who are the secularists/Alevis.
Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, and now Egypt.* There’s your new axis of evil.
Iran appears to have defected to Israel under Russian cover. Iran’s #1 declared enemy is Qatar, then Turkey, then I believe Syria, Egypt… finally, the USA is #5, and Israel #6.
Luckily, the Libyan wing of the Brotherhood is not on the best terms with the Egyptian wing of the Brotherhood, so it’s doubtful Libya will go the way of the others.
Perhaps the worst part of all this is that over the past decade, while we have hunted the ideological terrorists of AQ, we’ve overlooked their more banal criminal elements, who do business in human and sex trafficking, drugs, and narco financing, and weapons smuggling. This process has enabled them to cuddle up with the Muslim Brotherhood to the point of nearly taking them over, albeit through a proxy, Hizb ut Tahrir (HuT). What do you suppose is going on in Burma now that warranted an Obama visit?
HuT, well, they’re everywhere, from London to Kazakhstan to Indonesia. AQ’s political party.
What we should be worried about most is that it appears as if Tel Aviv has gone the way of Moscow, and we’re now on the wrong side of the EU, Russia, Israel, China, and Chavez (through Iran). Yes, we’ve taken sides Pakistan, and all the baggage that comes with it. Obama, what a crazy failure you are.
Excellent analysis!
And, wow. Just, wow.
We are so up sh-t creek.
To me, I feel like all islamic nations would put there differences aside….at first…… to take on Israel and the United States. Once thats done they will fight amongst themselves.
I mean they have infiltrated our government and media so nothing is really stopping them. Infact the communist in our media, govt and own citizenship are helping them.
@CitizenWatcher,
What’s the saying?…
My enemy’s enemy is my friend?
Well, the thing is that Muslim countries war with each other more than non-Muslim countries. The Persians also war with the Arabs, the Balochis with the Punjabs, etc. etc. etc. Internecine warfare is just par for the course.
Besides, Saudi Arabia might as well be El Paso. The Saudis aren’t out to get us.
Yeah – forgot to mention this is only Part 1 — Part 2 tomorrow…………
Thank you TandJ for posting…I repost from November 18, 2012
AmericaTheBeautiful
November 18, 2012 at 9:08 am
Timeline:
*Obama was gun and missile running against Constitutional authority… the armaments came from manufacturer Lockheed
*Petraeus meets with Romney for VP slot..Obama freaks out
*Benghazi 9/11 rape and murder of US ambassador Stevens and ex Seals murder happens…who asked the Seals to use their lazer to light up their position? As that pinpointed to the terrorists where to slaughter the Seals when no Drone intended help…so who led the Seals to believe there was armed help above? Otherwise they would not have revealed their own position
*Petraeus signed on to the Obama Internet video meme coverup story….just as blackmailed to do…to cover his own personal indiscretions being publically released….(Obama White House blackmails and threatens Petraeus for political control)
*Obama reelected (through fraud)
*Petraeus submits letter of resignation within two days with affair as excuse…..to aviod missile running exposure
(which many insiders knew of)
*Lockheed new CEO, supplier of illegal armamnets ALSO submits resignation letter for affairs ( supplier of missiles and guns to Obama) now believing this excuses himself to sworn Congressional investigation too ( he thinks)
**** Other Considerations:
*.Obama’s AlQaeda rebels take out and kill and rape Russian allie Kaddaffi (turning LIBYA over to Muslim Brotherhood)
*.Obama running guns and missiles including illegal Stinger missiles per NATO treaty… Illegally into Russia’s alley Syria ….in an attempt to take down Assad and bring Syria under Muslim Brotherhood control
* Russia behind Benghazi attack of Ambassador Stevens, using their rebel force… as payback for Kaddaffi…a RAPE for a RAPE….and a MURDER for a and MURDER.
*Russia does victory lap…in arrogant move and show of power….their nuclear submarine off the USA’s East Coast of the United States on Election Day 2012
Does this add up to Sedition, Treason or Ignorance??? Middle East now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood…and missile strikes began on Israel after Obama re-election…….As the FBI likes to say “There are no coincidences”
****Not certain of Lamecherry contention of kidnap plot…but the refusal of amped up security, as well as the ludicrious removal of ALL security (Particularly in light of the British Consulate leaving Benghazi aft attacks and the Red Cross withdrawing from Benghazi) is nonsensical …11 days prior to the attack on Benghazi.
This does give weight to that kidnap theory…Assume the Turkish Counsel was in on the set up…as he walked away from Stevens within minutes of the beginning of gunfire beginning on the CIA….unharmed and unimpeded…in a closed street filled with rebels and armaments …
From Lamecherry
“So for a short review, a synopsis, so all can look the expert, Obama tries to get Chris Stevens kidnapped while he is worried about David Patreaus in bed with Mitt Romney, so Obama sends in the FBI via conduits to “investigate” things as the cat fight kitties give a cover reason for all of this.
In the meantime, Patreaus to save himself from being blamed for allowing Obama to arm and train terrorists which got Stevens murdered, starts feeding information to Mitt Romney on all of this to head CIA under a Romney regime, not knowing in trying to save himself, that Obama has a sword over Patraeus in all of this sex stuff, just waiting to cut him off after the election theft, as things start to unravel due to the work of this blog concerning ANALGATE.
ButtreausGate is about the cover up of ANALGATE in which Dave’s Deep Throat got him into trouble.”
Re: Russia’s Nuclear Sub off our coast
http://freebeacon.com/russian-subs-skirt-coast/
TandJ, Add this to what you know…watch the video at the link…and consider the military and the industrial military complex including Lockheed has taken over the CIA.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/042811a.html
The news that President Barack Obama has picked Gen. David Petraeus to be CIA director raises troubling questions, including whether the commander most associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will tolerate objective analysis of those two
What if CIA analysts assess the prospects of success in those two wars as dismal and conclude that the troop “surges” pushed so publicly by Petraeus wasted both the lives of American troops and many billions of taxpayer dollars? Will CIA Director Petraeus welcome such critical analysis or punish it?
The Petraeus appointment also suggests that the President doesn’t value getting the straight scoop on these key war-related issues. If he did, why is he giving the CIA job to a general with a huge incentive to gild the lily regarding the “progress” made under his command?
Petraeus already has a record as someone who looks at skeptical CIA analysts as gnats to be swatted away before they bite. That is why he relegated them to strap-hanger status during the key decision-making process in late 2009 on what to do about Afghanistan.
When Obama expressed doubts about the value of a major escalation in Afghanistan, Petraeus assured him that he and his generals had it all figured out, that 33,000 additional troops would do the trick.
CIA analysts weren’t even assigned to do a formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which normally is a de rigueur step before making any significant presidential decision like a large-scale escalation of a war. Remarkably, no NIE was prepared before the President’s decision to up U.S. troop levels to 100,000 in late 2009.
To his credit, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who became Director of National Intelligence in August 2010, insisted that two NIEs be prepared last fall — one on Afghanistan and one on Pakistan.
The one on Afghanistan concluded that the U.S. could not prevail without a firm decision by Pakistan to interdict the Taliban along the border with Afghanistan. The one on Pakistan said, in the vernacular, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the Pakistanis would make such a decision. Ergo?
The sobering conclusions of the NIEs were supported by a treasure trove of 92,000 documents written mostly by U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2009 and released by WikiLeaks on July 25, 2010.
This more granular reporting laid bare the brutality and fecklessness of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan — particularly the forlorn hope that the Pakistanis will change their strategic outlook and help pull the U.S. chestnuts out of the Afghan fire. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Afghan War Leaks Expose Costly Folly.”]
Good Luck Persuading Pakistan
Perhaps the most explosive revelations disclosed the double game being played by the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
Der Spiegel reported: “The documents clearly show that this Pakistani intelligence agency is the most important accomplice the Taliban has outside of Afghanistan.”
The documents revealed that ISI envoys not only are present when insurgent commanders hold war councils, but also give specific orders to carry out assassinations — including, according to one report, an attempt on the life of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in August 2008.
Former Pakistani intelligence chief, Gen. Hamid Gul, is depicted as an important source of aid to the Taliban and even, in another report, as a “leader” of the insurgents. The reports show Gul ordering suicide attacks and describe him as one of the most important suppliers of weaponry to the Taliban.
Though the Pakistani government has angrily denied U.S. government complaints about Gul and the ISI regarding secret ties to the Taliban and even to al-Qaeda, the evidence certainly raises serious questions regarding what the Pakistanis have been doing with the billions of dollars that Washington has given them.
No matter. In 2009, President Obama decided to bless Gen. Petraeus’s “counterinsurgency” campaign, with U.S. Special Forces kicking down Afghan doors at night, drones terrorizing alleged “militants,” and whole villages destroyed in order to “save” them from the Taliban – a truly strange way to go about winning hearts and minds.
Back stateside, U.S. intelligence analysts looked on with dismay. Those with some gray in their hair were reminded of similar failed tactics and warped intelligence assessments of the U.S. military command in Vietnam.
The Ghost of Westmoreland Past
As I watched Petraeus perform, I often saw the ghost of Army Gen. William Westmoreland against whom charges of deliberate distortion and dishonesty were proven once intelligence analysts had their day in a post-Vietnam-War court of law — literally.
Back in 1967, in order to demonstrate “progress” in the war, Westmoreland ordered his intelligence officers not to go higher than 299,000 for the total count of Communists under arms in South Vietnam.
he fear was that if journalists did some basic arithmetic, the body counts and “war of attrition” would all be proven a sham.
All the U.S. intelligence agencies except the Army’s agreed that the actual number was almost twice that, and were soon proven tragically right during the country-wide Tet offensive in late January to early February 1968.
So, what is Petraeus’s actual estimate of the number of Taliban his forces face in Afghanistan? Is there no such estimate – or is it too secret or too embarrassing to reveal? As for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, U.S. intelligence does have an estimate of 50 to 100 — no, not thousand, just 50 to 100.
Moreover, little serious thought seems to have been given to the daunting challenge of the resupply of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In Vietnam, resupply was a piece of cake compared to the challenge of getting supplies through Pakistan, over the Khyber Pass, and into Afghanistan.
At home, Americans grouse about having to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline. It costs $400 to get a gallon into a U.S. Army or Marine vehicle inside Afghanistan.
Aside from the obscene expense, the long supply lines are extremely vulnerable — not only to attack from folks who don’t want U.S. troops in their country, but also to the caprice of Pakistani officials who can choke off the supply routes at will.
Last weekend, for example, a large crowd protesting U.S. drone strikes demanded that the attacks end in one month or demonstrators would cut off a key supply route for Western troops in Afghanistan.
The two-day protest clogged up a major road used by trucks to ferry supplies across the border.
“We will block NATO supplies from Karachi to Khyber everywhere if drone attacks are not stopped in one month,” said Imran Khan, a former Pakistani cricket star-turned-politician, to the crowd of protesters.
Progress in Afghanistan?
But the core problem of Petraeus as CIA director is that his reputation is inextricably tied to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and whether they are judged successes or failures. Put differently, will CIA Director Petraeus demand that his analysts see the glass half full rather than half empty, just as he has as the commander of those conflicts?
In March, Gen. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee about the Afghan War, “While the security progress achieved over the past year is significant, it is also fragile and reversible.” Thus, he insisted, it would be unwise to abandon the mission.
If the “fragile but reversible” formulation has a familiar ring, you may recall that Petraeus lifted it out of the cliché cabinet several times in early 2008 to characterize security progress in Iraq.
The general clearly finds the line a convenient, one-size-fits-all sound bite. So far, Congress and the Fawning Corporate Media have let him get away with it.
Are we to expect that once Petraeus takes the helm at CIA, the career analysts will still be able to call the war in Afghanistan a fool’s errand? If the new CIA director insists on seeing progress – however “fragile and reversible” – will vulnerable analysts risk his wrath by contradicting him?
We’ll know, I suppose, as soon as we hear that sound bite showing up in the CIA’s analytic assessments.
For now, we already know that Petraeus’s professional optimism is not shared among rank-and-file analysts at CIA. And the grim statistics continue to build. Just this week, the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan passed the 6,000 mark, with 43,184 the official figure for the number wounded.
An additional 54,592 have required medical evacuation from combat. Thus, about 104,000 U.S. troops — a conservative minimum not including the walking wounded, those with traumatic brain injury, attempted or successful suicides, and civilian contractors — are casualties of these long wars.
Against this background, I find it hard to believe that President Obama would fritter away his best chance to get an unvarnished assessment — without fear or favor — from intelligence specialists with career protection for “telling it like it is,” the views of the boss notwithstanding.
The conundrum is hardly unprecedented. Think back to the 1980s and the challenges faced by honest analysts trying to report on the Contra war in Nicaragua, even as it was being run by the boss, then-CIA Director William Casey.
Finding ‘Intelligence’ on Iran
Iran will continue to loom large as a target for intelligence analysis during Petraeus’s tenure at CIA. What is disconcerting on that front is that Petraeus has been eager to serve up “intelligence” to portray Iran in the worst light.
One rather strange but instructive example comes to mind. It involves a studied, if disingenuous, effort to blame all the troubles in southern Iraq on the “malignant” influence of Iran.
On April 25, 2008, Joint Chiefs Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters that Gen. Petraeus in Baghdad would give a briefing “in the next couple of weeks” providing detailed evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.”
Petraeus’s staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.
Investigative reporter Gareth Porter noted at the time that the idea was to fill the airwaves with spectacular news framing Iran as the culprit in Iraq for several days, with the aim of “breaking down congressional and public resistance to the idea that Iranian bases supporting the meddling would have to be attacked.”
There was a small problem, however. When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons, they found nothing that could be credibly linked to Iran.
Adding to Washington’s chagrin, the Iraqis announced that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate the U.S. claims and attempt to “find tangible information and not information based on speculation.” Ouch!
The embarrassment for Petraeus might have been greater, but the U.S. media conveniently forgot the promised briefing. After all, the general has long been a darling of the FCM.
U.S. media suppression of this episode was a telling reminder of how difficult it is to get unbiased and accurate information on touchy subjects like Iran.
The NIE That Stopped a War
Another key question is whether, as CIA director, Petraeus will be able to summon the integrity to face down the neocons and others who are determined to magnify the “threat” from Iran and increase pressure for military action to nip Iran’s nuclear program in the bud.
There has been growing pressure to jettison the unanimous judgment, reached “with high confidence” by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, that Iran had stopped the work on a nuclear weapon in mid-2003.
Despite strong pressure from Washington’s influential neoconservatives to water down that key judgment, the leaders of the intelligence community have remained firm — so far — and reaffirmed that judgment earlier this year.
In a section of his memoir, former President George W. Bush laments that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran had tied his hands “on the military side.” Bush added this (apparently unedited) kicker:
“But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”
Not even Vice President Dick Cheney could persuade Bush to continue driving the pro-war-on-Iran juggernaut forward with its tires punctured by the NIE. The avuncular Cheney has made it clear that he was disappointed in his protégé.
On Aug. 30, 2009, Cheney told “Fox News Sunday” that he was isolated among Bush advisers in his enthusiasm for war with Iran.
“I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues,” Cheney said when asked whether the Bush administration should have launched a pre-emptive attack on Iran before leaving office.
It will be very interesting to see if Petraeus decides to tamper with the controversial but unanimous judgment that Iran has not worked on a nuclear weapon since mid-2003. And, if he does, whether there remains enough residual integrity in the ranks of analysts to resist such tampering.
Should Petraeus sense signs of revolt, he may simply choose to follow the example of the last general to head the CIA, Michael Hayden.
Ever ready to do his part for Cheney and the neoconservatives, the malleable Hayden, on April 30, 2008, publicly offered his “personal opinion” that Iran is building a nuclear weapon – the conclusions of the NIE notwithstanding.
For good measure, Hayden added: “It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq. … Just make sure there’s clarity on that.”
Petraeus Careful on Israel
Petraeus also deeply values his relationship with prominent neoconservatives who have received extraordinary access to war zones – personally arranged by the general – in exchange for their service to him as his cheering section in influential Washington opinion circles.
A couple of e-mails that Gen. Petraeus inadvertently sent to an unintended recipient confirmed his cozy relationship with hard-line neocon Max Boot, as Petraeus begged Boot to head off any suggestion that Petraeus was less than 100 percent supportive of Israel.
The e-mails from Petraeus to Max Boot revealed the four-star general renouncing his own congressional testimony in March 2010 because it included the observation that “the enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests” in the Middle East.
Petraeus’s testimony continued, “Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. … Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons, Likud Conquer DC, Again.”]
Though Petraeus’s testimony might strike many of us as a no-brainer, not so for the neocons. They resist any suggestion that Israeli intransigence regarding peace talks on Pale stine contributes to the dangers faced by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan or by the American people from possible acts of terrorism at home.
So, when Petraeus’s testimony began getting traction on the Internet, the general quickly turned to Boot, a writer based at the high-powered, establishment Council on Foreign Relations, and began backtracking on the testimony.
“As you know, I didn’t say that,” Petraeus said, according to one e-mail to Boot timed off at 2:27 p.m., March 18, 2010. “It’s in a written submission for the record.”
In other words, Petraeus was trying to demonstrate his orthodoxy by emphasizing that the comments were only in his formal written testimony submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee and were not repeated by him in his brief oral opening statement.
In another e-mail, as Petraeus solicited Boot’s help in tamping down any controversy over the Israeli remarks, the general ended the message with a military “Roger” and a sideways happy face made from a colon, a dash and a closed parenthesis,
.
The unintended recipient explained that he received the exchange by accident when he sent a March 19, 2010, e-mail congratulating Petraeus for his testimony and Petraeus responded by forwarding one of Boot’s blog posts that knocked down the story of the general’s implicit criticism of Israel.
Petraeus forwarded Boot’s blog item, entitled “A Lie: David Petraeus, Anti-Israel,” which had been posted at the Commentary magazine site at 3:11 p.m. on March 18. However, Petraeus apparently forgot to delete some of the other exchanges between him and Boot at the bottom of the e-mail.
The e-mails also reveal Petraeus brainstorming with Boot regarding how to finesse the potential controversy over the Senate testimony.
At 2:37 p.m. on March 18, Petraeus asks Boot, “Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?! And that I will be the speaker at the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in mid-Apr at the Capitol Dome [?]”
Eight minutes later, Boot responded, “No don’t think that’s relevant because you’re not being accused of being anti-Semitic.”
That’s when a relieved Petraeus responds, “Roger!
”
This kind of pandering is not reassuring as Petraeus trades in his bemedaled Army uniform and his Afghan War command for a civilian suit and the director’s suite at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
Thanks – yes, I thought they had already been infiltrated, etc. I suspect all of our govn’t agencies are infiltrated and being used to bring in their commie agenda. Always much, much bigger, sinister and destructive than people think. And like you say….KABUKI, ALWAYS. As you probably know, Pres. Eisenhower (my distant cousin I’m proud to say) was very worried about the military industrial complex and was worried what would happen after he left….for future presidents to have the wisdom, patriotism, etc. to say “no” to those Generals who wanted to go to war, etc. His fears were justified and exactly what happened afterwards —- Vietnam (which he was against).
UM
What happened to my comment of yesterday on this post. Never appeared. Could you fish it our of spamy?
BM, mine appeared and then disappeared…UM? Are we being managed here? No longer have the rights to free speech?
Sometimes I wish I had the Tardis and could just blink in and out of people’s offices in DC – I would love to sit and watch Pelosi in her daily ins & outs.
On another note – why are we on the right so ready to kick people to the curb when the leftists hang on to their idiots? Example: Pelosi, Frank, Jesse Jackson, Jr – they are just three who are a total embarrassment not only to their party but their respective genders. Yet, the left keeps them around while we kick our people to the curb for the smallest offense (that being whatever makes someone mad that day).
I am NOT happy with the Speaker one bit – but — tell me what leverage he has right now against Skelator in the Senate and President Zero? Nothing – nada – zip and Zero has the eyes and ears of the idiot young in this country who voted him back in so he can run around and claim the GOP is killing Santa Clause etc etc etc. So he’s doing the best he can with a stacked deck in their favor. I say let’s see what he ends up with. Either way – the next four years are going to be us against them fighting to keep this experiment of a country alive and kicking through 2014.
Social conservatism is being made a laughing stock in this country. Which is why the young are running from it. But numbers are numbers. If the party would leave “legitimate rape” alone and concentrate on Federal spending and getting the economy running (a big concern of youth) we might gain some traction.
And the Drug War has got to go. I did a bit on how pot arrests cancer on my blog. I’d drop a link but they are being censored. Try searching “classical values cancer drug war” if you want a look. The Drug War is a war on youth. We could get those youth by championing its end.
I know so many people under 45 who won’t even look at the Republican party because they don’t want to be associated w/social conservatives. Lately, I’ve been convinced that Jesus is embarrassed about how we’ve been treating people – w/the name calling – and then we run around and claim to be Christians.
Jesus never called people names while calling people out on their s-t. Jesus met people where they were and didn’t expect them to be better than what they were. Jesus knew that potential was there, so He used love to lead them to a better way. In the end, He wasn’t a jerk about it. People were allowed to make their own choices about whether to follow Jesus or not.
If we are going to claim to be Christians, but then treat people badly because they disagree with us…..well, we need to think about how our behavior might turn people off to the message.
It’s really sad because we have the right values, but we get candidates who are inarticulate (legitimate rape – nobody in the right mind can defend that!) and aren’t savvy enough to realize that the media isn’t interested in listening to our views. They are interested in getting the “he/she is a nut-job” story to impress their media friends.
Folks,
Don’t waste time with trolls. the commies are very good at this. The obvious trolls need to be deleted, and not the old and valuable contributors.
As for the repubics, Cantor is as bad as Boehner.
I don’t believe anything good will come out of this party until real conservatives are in power, in both the Congress and senate.
Until then, demsheviks will roll over this party.
The Benghazi story is all about illegals deads done by this admin., like guns for islamofascists and such.
This should be the focus of the repubics, not the lies Rice said.
Because running illegal arms to terrorists is an impeachable offense, much bigger story than Watergate+Iran-Contra+Fast&Furious.
Cobra,
Funny thing. I have bee called a troll. And yet I have run stories on my blog about how Libyan weapons wound up in the hands of the Gazans. Funny thing. 9/11 in Libya and about a month later Gaza erupts. A connection? Maybe. Maybe not.
This is how the trolls should be dealt with:
DECISIVE ACTION AGAINST OBAMA’S LEFT-WING ‘TROLLS’
Pajama bandits seek to stifle thought, discredit right
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/leftist-trolls-in-ongoing-war-with-wnd/
I don’t trust this new Insider at all…he’s RINO to the core.
Well he is no social conservative that is for sure. But the party structure itself is beginning to leave that behind. It is not an electoral winner nationally. No matter how well it does in some locales. Clue: compare this year’s platform re: The Drug War to the Platform in 2008.
You might also want to look up how liberals and some TEA Party libertarians teamed up to pass pot legalization in Colorado.
Smaller government – in everything.
It was noted on some of the news sites that Libyan weapons wound up in Gaza.
I’d drop a link here but my Classical Values links are being censored.