Another OBAMination: Our Southern Border by Rich Carroll

We just returned home to South Texas from El Paso, TX, today.  On our way home we heard on the radio that Obama would be arriving in El Paso to visit the border with Mexico for the first time since he became president.  (He seems to be cramming in a lot of "firsts" since he announced his re-election bid.)  While we were in El Paso, we saw on the news a most elaborate tunnel that was built from an abandoned home in Nogales, Mexico, and exited across the border into the state of Arizona.  The tunnel had running water, electricity and ventilation. The entire description can be read at Fox News Latino   It makes one wonder why the story is published in a publication that isn't really of interest to the general population.  We feel it should be a headline story in all states.

 Tunnels such as these are not an unusual find at all.  Governor Jan Brewer of AZ is now being forced to take her case to the United States Supreme Court because Arizonians' attempt to regulate the illegal transport of drugs, and trafficking in human cargo across their border is being thwarted by the Obama administration, specifically the DOD.  Had Obama really been interested in the "border problems" and the illegal immigration which causes American taxpayers billions of dollars yearly, he would not have chosen El Paso for his visit today.

In spite of the recent violence in Ciudad Juarez, MX, brought about by the drug cartels, El Paso and Juarez have historically been looked upon as one large metropolitan area.  Driving in to El Paso in the evening, and seeing the city lights,  it is difficult to distinguish where Texas ends and Mexico begins.  The citizens of both cities commute to work or home with as much regularity as those who work in large cities commute to suburban communities.  Spanish is  often heard spoken more than English, and vehicles with Mexican license plates are not unusual.  Even students from Juarez attend public schools in El Paso, TX.

The committee to reelect Obama chose a city where he would have a sympathetic audience.  It is an obvious attempt to capture the Hispanic vote, in this case, the Mexican American vote.  Hopefully, they will have misjudged the Hispanic voters.  The arrogance of Obama and his backers to believe that Hispanic voters can be easily  swayed and/or bought with his habitual empty promises is an insult to Hispanic intelligence,  ethics and value system. 

Regardless of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's assurances, the border between Mexico and the United States is in fact NOT secure.   The problems that the extremely porous border present are not just concerning  illegal immigration from Mexico and other Central American countries, or the lucrative and harmful business of  drug trafficking into the U.S.  It is foolish of the Obama administration, and foolish on the part of Americans in denial not to  recognize that the porosity of the very long border is a perfect conduit for our enemies to enter the country.  Since the killing of Usama bin Laden, we as a nation have been on high security alert.  We simply don't know where to expect the next attack, or who will perpetrate it, but we do know that one IS coming.  Muslims are vengeful.  They will not let UBL's death go unavenged.

Thus, it was a thrill to us, after being on hiatus, to find an article by our friend and frequent contributor Rich Carroll in our mail.  Few people can give a better perspective of the situation at the border with Mexico than Rich.  We ask that you read, and heed.  The facts are irrefutable.  The author's experience and expertise are difficult to match.
Two Sisters

Another OBAMination: Our Southern Border

by Rich Carroll
First off, let's put to rest Barack Hussein's comment about “keeping America safe.” He has sued the State of Arizona for trying to “keep American safe.” Obama and his supporters need to stop lying.

Moving-right-along, Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano recently stated: “Our borders are more secure than they have ever been.” Let's examine this lie: Pinal County, Arizona statistics for the three year period from 2008 thru 2010: calls to police about illegals rose from 169 to 370. Vehicle pursuits in the county jumped from 140 to 340, and Marijuana seized in 2008 was 19,619 pounds versus 45,400 pounds in 2010. Cartel drug smugglers have been killed 70 miles into the state of Arizona, and murders and body mutilations are up. U.S. Border Patrol reports that nearly half the illegal immigrants entering America come through Arizona. The Tucson sector alone captured 219,300 illegals in 2010. On April 1, 2011, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio told the press he had information that Border Patrol officials have repeatedly been told to reduce – sometimes stop – their arrests of illegal aliens at the U.S./Mexico border. During the year 2010, 84 per cent of the 448,000 illegal aliens arrested by U.S. Border Patrol were not prosecuted.

A former U.S. Intelligence agent reported that Hezbollah has been setting up shop in Mexico for the past 15 to 20 years and they are partnering with drug cartels to gain the funds, the guns and the money needed to cross our border and carry out terrorist attacks on you and I. This writer has been involved with volunteer border security for five years and seen some of this with my own eyes. All that is protecting the lives of innocent Americans from the militant jihadists intent on destroying our country and life is a few miles of desert and largely unmonitored open border.

For decades Hezbollah has operated in South and Central America with their ally, Hamas. Now, Hezbollah is blending into Shia Muslim communities in Mexico including Tijuana, and Juarez as they build their relationships with Mexican drug cartels to gain the funds needed for terror attacks on the U.S. Hezbollah is regarded as the “A” Team of terrorists because their members are better trained, better organized and overall better strategic thinkers.

The Obama Administration continues to ignore the terrorists plotting against us and playing politics with border security and immigration reform for the sake of re-election with the help of amnesty for EVERY illegal immigrant by next year.

Both the U.S. Border Patrol Agency and U.S. Customs fall under the umbrella organization of Department of Homeland Security. In the game of bureaucratic lying, monies slated for the Border Patrol have been cut and they are running out of money for such things as gasoline. This will cut-down on actual patrol and “catching bad guy time.” The U.S. Border Patrol needs to return to the Department of Justice where it was before 911. Someone has purposely degraded our ability to catch illegal aliens crossing our southern border. Who could that be?

During the year 2010, 663 Muslims with ties to terrorist organizations were captured along our southern border. This included individuals from special-interest countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and countries designated by the U.S. Department of State as sponsors of terror – Iran, Syria and Sudan. These figures can be verified through the office of John Cornyn (R-Texas). How many were not captured? So much for “defending our security.”

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office report, 56 per cent of the border is not under operational control. 44 per cent secure is a FAILING GRADE by any standards and our Homeland Security Director thinks Americans are stupid enough to swallow her radical leftist pablum. Bunk.

Above, I have only discussed one small fraction of the 2000 mile border.

To protect the future of your children and grand children, call or write your senator and congressmen. STOP THE INSANITY. We are sitting like sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

Copyright Rich Carroll - 2011


Rich Carroll can be reached at  crossedrifles@hotmail.com  He is the author of  the book, "Terrorists' Crossing"

America's Grand Mufti: Barack Hussein Obama

By Rich Carroll

Let's stop tiptoeing around the etiology of political correctness about this guy Moon bats call “Mr. President.” Obama's Muslim administration has instructed top government officials to use the phrase “the Holy Qur'an” when referring to the Islamic book of murdering filth. You will hear Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, General Petraus or anyone speaking for “The United States” use this sickening submissive phrase. The “Bible,” however, will remain the “Bible” and not the “Holy Bible.” Since the “Qur'an” tells readers 109 times to kill infidels and Jews, and calls for jihad 41 times, this charlatan we have as president feels it deserves the title “Holy.” What do you expect from someone who never uses the words Jesus or God? Obama has a habit of leaving out “creator” when he quotes the founding document. Passover recalls the bondage and suffering of Jews in Egypt and the miracle of the Exodus, but Barack Hussein Obama says “its message is reflected in Muslim uprisings.” Huh?


The latest wreckage Obama has left behind in his rush to Islamisize the United States is the inexcusable granting of U.S. Citizenship to three convicted Muslim terrorists. This is what we come to expect from someone who said “I consider it my responsibility to fight against negative stereotype of Islam where ever they appear,” but where is the outrage? Where was the media concern when Obama placed Muslims high-up within our Homeland Security?


For over half his life, this out of nowhere “CIC” has aligned himself with radical extremists who hate American and he refuses to denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. He knows far more about Islam than he does Christianity, and he scares me because he recently imported 80,000 foreign Muslims at a time when our national unemployment is already double-digits.


On the 14th of April, Obama hosted Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar, otherwise known as the “boss of Al-Jazeera” for a meeting in the Oval Office. Obama called this terrorist thug “Your Highness.” “Your Highness” sponsors Anti-American and Anti-Semitic cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is most recently supervising the Islamic transformation of Eqypt. These are the types of people Obama called “friends,” a list that includes Nation of Islam Minister Khallid Muhammad (who gave his famous Kill the White Man speech in 1996.) This Muslim thug was also publically supported by Al Sharpton, Keith Ellison, and Cynthia McKinney; more Obama friends. When Khallid died in 2001, Al Sharpton rushed to his bed side and gave $10,000 to pay for his funeral. The media, afraid of the “racist” label, hides the rampant extremism of the black community that Obama vehemently supports. Not only is Obama's campaign to “fundamentally transform” American into a second-rate socialist dump advancing at a rapid pace, his Islamization process is speeding right along. You and I are suppose to forget the 17,134 Muslim terrorist attacks since 911. We are suppose to forget 911. America is getting fed-up with pussy-footing around Obama's murdering cult. So are our Afghanistan soldiers who are rapidly losing faith in his intentions and leadership.


Under Obama's instructions, the Islamification of the educational system is well underway. Textbooks whitewash Islam's bloody history. Public school children are forbidden to pray or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but are obliged to play “Muslim for a day.” Meanwhile, universities eagerly introduce foot baths, Muslim prayer rooms and Halal cafeteria food.


Are you aware that written into the Obama Health Care Swindle Muslims are given a pass on paying? Yes, YOU must pay for Muslim healthcare. Nice eh? Thank you Barack Hussein Obama. Please tell your friends this “special dispensation” given to his brethren at your expense. 


Thanks to Barack Hussein Obama Muslims are obtaining a foothold in U.S. Government agencies. The #1 target is internships at the State Department, followed by #2 Fellowships at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and #3 Presidential Management Fellowships. Did I mention YOU pay for the these?


Lawfare is on the rise in the U.S. Muslim groups file expensive, time consuming lawsuits against critics of Islam, and it is no secret that Muslims on welfare is a plot to drain us financially. An example is one Muslim man in Dearborn, Michigan with 8 wives. All 8 wives draw welfare checks. Compound these figures.


Increasingly, Muslim employees are suing companies for the "right" to refuse to handle "unclean" pork or alcohol, or the "right" to wear headscarves. These demands for accommodation extend even behind prison walls, where Muslim prisoners (indoctrinated by Muslim chaplains trained by foreign extremists) insist on getting special treatment as well. What is worse? Your tax payer funded Department of Justice spends YOUR money to defend these cases on behalf of the Muslims.


We as a nation forgot the quote “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” and put a phony Muslim plant in our White House who is now trying desperately to reconnect with an America (and our heritage) that he does not care about and his insincerity is glaring. Let's therefore, call him what he does better than “president,” he is a Mohammedan Mufti who has issued a fatwa to “fundamentally change America”...to a Muslim state.


Copyright - 2011  Richard Carroll


Richard Carroll is the author of the book "Orphaned Heroes" about his expereinces in Vietnam, and the book "Terrorists' Crossing" about the United States-Mexico border.  He's also written and sold one screenplay and has been published in many conservative blogs here and abroad.

Medicare and Taxes, Obama's Bargaining Chips



As he embarks on his bid for reelection, Barack Obama is cranking up the same tune  for fixing the economy -- Raise taxes on the rich, cut back on Medicare benefits.   Rich, to Barack Obama, is any one who makes more than $250,000.00 per year.   Why does he not mention the overpaid, often under talented celebrities who make outrageous amounts of money and contribute to his political campaigns.  Those people are rich!  Obama knows that  if he goes along with the Republicans' plan to cut the budget in order to bring the national debt under control, he will risk losing the support of his liberal base.

After Obama gave up $38.5 billion to the Republicans last week in order to avoid a budget shut down, liberal activists have threatened to withhold their support if he doesn't fight against any more cuts.  The Republicans on the other hand, are talking the need to slice trillions, not billions of dollars in programs in order to save the nation from impending bankruptcy.  The compromise between the parties was short lived.  On Wednesday, Obama will once again have to face the nation and deliver a speech about the looming battle over raising the debt ceiling. 

Senator Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling during the Bush administration, yet now his staffers claim that the president regrets his vote and admits that it was a mistake.  This admission means only one thing:  Obama will push for raising the debt ceiling.

Obama has also promised his supporters that if he must make any  reductions in government entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid, they will be accompanied by tax increases on the rich and cuts in defense spending.  Now that he has authorized a surge in Afghanistan and  involved our country in a very costly third war in Libya, he plans to cut defense spending? Obama's feelings for the military were made quite clear last week when he threatened to withhold military pay if the government were to be shutdown.

Obama's liberal base wants him to appear as a job creator and not one who cuts the deficit budget, but the man has been in office for two years, and the only jobs that have been created are federal jobs, while the unemployment rate in the private sector remains basically unchanged.  There is no way that Obama can sell himself to the American electorate as a "job creator," while progressives believe that the fundamental problem in our country right now is unemployment and a job crisis, not a deficit crisis.

Last year when Obama agreed to extend the Bush cuts and not to penalize those who made $200,000 - $250,000 a year by taxing them, we agreed with the decision.  We feel that to penalize those who have studied hard to receive an education, and who have worked and sacrificed to eventually make a comfortable salary is unfair.  Those are the people who provide for themselves and their families without turning to the government for help and assistance.  Such taxes kill initiative and stifle the individuals' drive to succeed.  It is those  persons who make the  seemingly high salaries, who pay the high taxes to keep those entitlement programs going. They pay the exorbitant property taxes to keep the schools districts going.  Those are the folks who pay the high income taxes to the IRS.   Now the government wants to tax them again?  They are the people who pay for college tuition for their children without asking for assistance.   They are the ones who pay their debts, who spend the money that keeps small businesses afloat.  They are America's middle class. They are not the "rich." 

The White House has hinted that Obama's speech will announce deep cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid benefits.  In speaking with doctors and other health care professionals, we know that cutting benefits will be more difficult on the elderly than to consider Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to restructure the Medicare system.  If implemented now, the Ryan Plan would not affect anyone over the age of 55, but it would give those under 54 ample opportunity to successfully adapt to the changes before the full plan is implemented.  Those now receiving Medicare would not experience any drastic changes at all. 

The Medicare system has been subject to fraud and abuse for years, which has in large part been responsible for the system being broke and broken.  According to the Center For Public Integrity, "Every year as much as $60 billion in taxpayer money is stolen from Medicare, which pays for the health care of seniors and the disabled. This massive rip-off is done through various schemes, but largely by fraudulently billing for services or medical equipment they do not provide. “The legitimate Medicare recipient is hurt, the legitimate business that’s dispensing this and serving patients is hurt, every taxpayer is hurt, and we need to come down on this with both feet." But no serious crackdown has taken place, despite calls by legislators from both parties. We urge them to address the issue ASAP.

There are many reasons why Medicare has become unsustainable.  One is that people are living longer than previously expected, another is the fraud that increases yearly and goes unpunished.  Rather than to continue to frighten the voters, particularly the elderly with cuts to the system that they have by law been forced to accept as their health care provider, the Obama administration should seek to work with Republicans to find a lasting solution to the problem.  In the year 2000, then Texas Governor George W. Bush said:  "Medicare should not be a political issue."   We agree, it should not.  Medicare is dealing with peoples' lives.  Raising taxes is dealing in peoples' living.  Politicians don't have the right to mishandle either one.
 
 

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

Thomas Jefferson

The Speaker Pulled Off A Victory

Just about anyone with an opinion and an audience has weighed in on the outcome of the budget negotiations between Speaker Boehner representing the GOP and Democrats Harry Reid and Barack H. Obama.  Many on the Republican side feel that the Speaker "caved in" and "blinked" first.  Others feel that he did a fine job in his first real face off with the Democrat majority.  Two Sisters From The Right agree with Thomas Lifson, writing for the American Thinker that the GOP came out of this first skirmish with the winning hand.  There are yet bigger battles to come and we should stand fast and support those whom we've chose to represent us.  In the end, Speaker Boehner won more concessions for the GOP than anyone else has before regarding budget cuts.  We don't know what went on behind the closed doors of negotiation.  Nor do we know what bargaining powers the Speaker had.  We do know that the president tried to hold our military hostage - a ploy that failed.  In our opinion, Speaker Boehner did just fine.
Two Sisters



A.F. BRAMCO summed up the politics best with this cartoon.
Via ComicallyIncorrect.com 



The GOP did just fine

by Thomas Lifson

American Thinker   

"There is more good in the budget deal than is revealed in the budget cut number agreed on last night. Measured against the size of budget cutting necessary for the future, the numbers are small, to be sure, but this number was a tactical, not a strategic engagement. The key to the matter is momentum, principle, and precedent, which set up the strategic environment for 2012.
Andrew Stiles at NRO correctly points out the extent of the Harry Reid cave-in.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) didn't want to cut anything at first. But bowing to political reality, eventually ponied up about $4.7 billion in cuts. He ended up with $33.8 billion less spending than he wanted. And he called it an "historic" accomplishment. (Not surprisingly, the left is appalled).

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), on the other hand, initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts. House Republicans, led by an undaunted freshman class, bumped that number up to $61 billion ($100 billion off the president's budget), before settling on $38.5 billion.

That's $6.5 billion more than Boehner asked for to begin with, and $5.5 billion more than the $33 billion that Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats claimed had been agreed to less than two weeks ago. A.J. Strata highlights the much bigger win that has been foreordained by the fine print, not conveyed in the number alone:
The budget number is pretty good, mainly because it kills programs instead of lowering their budgets for 6 months. so those 6 month numbers expand and grow in the coming year (snip) [emphasis added]

Obama even admitted in his speech infrastructure projects were being ‘delayed' (i.e., de-funded in 2011). Once de-funded, they will not be back any time soon. As fox News reports, this is a lot farther than the Democrats said they would be willing to go when this all started. (snip)

However, Boehner must have had an incredible stick in those negotiations, because Reid and Obama agreed to put things to vote in the Senate which everyone deemed impossible just last week. That is the truly amazing part of what Boehner pulled off yesterday:

The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama's government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America...
The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The last thing Reid or Obama want is a vote in the senate on Obamacare (or Planned Parenthood). But now they are going to have to vote and this is huge. If this happens, and 4 of those 23 red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2012 vote against Obamacare, then the President will have to veto a bipartisan bill that lines up with the overall will of the American voters. What could be better than isolating Obama and Obamacare from the will of the people and Congress heading into 2012?

The conclusion is inescapable that the Democrats realized they would be blamed for a shutdown, at least as much as the Republicans. The ploy of holding the troops' paychecks hostage stands as one of the dumbest political moves of the Obama presidency (and that is saying a lot). Sure there would be pictures of families turned away from the Washington Monument, but these would pale in comparison with the pictures of families near military bases unable to pay the rent or buy groceries, going into paycheck advance lenders and payting 22% interest in order to put food on the table.

One thing the American public will not tolerate is using our brave military heroes as political pawns.  Congratulations to Speaker Boehner, who, with "one half of one third of the government" pulled off a victory."



Copyright 2011 - American Thinker

Iraq: The Forgotten War?



Soldiers from the 17th Fires Brigade and 2nd Brigade
Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division arrive by to assist
the Iraqi ArmyFaddaqhryah and Bahar in Basra Province.

Photo: Spc. Maurice A. Galloway/U.S. Army

 Stories about Iraq and the war being fought there once dominated the news. The liberal media doggedly reported, and kept Iraq on the front burner as long as American casualties were high. In fact counting the number of casualties seemed to be a priority. Today, Iraq is seldom mentioned. If there are reporters embedded with the troops we don’t know who they are, we don’t hear reports. The only news from Iraq deemed worthy of mention is when an insurgent bomb is detonated killing Iraqis and damaging structures. It is the media’s way of reminding us that not everyone in Iraq is happy that the U.S. went there in the first place to rid them of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and to prevent American hating Islamist terrorists from regrouping and training there.

Since President Barack Obama declared last August that combat operations had ended, it seems difficult for most Americans to understand that soldiers can still be killed in Iraq. Writing for Stars and Stripes, Megan McCloskey asks the question: “Is Iraq the new forgotten war?” Would it surprise most Americans to learn that since Obama made his speech, 26 American military personnel have died in Iraq.? The fatalities demonstrate that the “advise and assist” roles now performed by the 46,000 troops still stationed in the country are not without danger. To date, there have been 14 service members killed in 2011, bringing the war’s death toll to more than 4,440. Eight of the 14 died as a result of hostile fire.  

Noel Brinkerhoff reports in All Thing Gov “A poll released in January showed nearly two thirds of respondents were only somewhat interested, not too interested or not interested at all in news about Iraq. Anecdotal evidence suggests many Americans believe the war to be over and are surprised to learn that soldiers are still dying in Iraq. “It would have been unthinkable even two years ago to say that we would reach a point at which most Americans and, indeed, some people in Washington, would increasingly be forgetting about Iraq,” Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) said in February. “But that point has largely come.” Indeed it has.

Brandon Hocking, killed in Iraq March 20, 2011

Barack Obama promised his supporters that he would bring the troops home, yet he has backed a surge in Afghanistan and the troops are still serving and dying in Iraq. The Obama backing media will not report the news as they happen so as not to disturb the president’s newly announced reelection campaign. Yet families are still coping with the loss of their dear ones. In an interview with Megan McCloskey, Britney Hocking shares that upon learning of her brother’s death in combat most people feel that he must have died in Afghanistan. Sgt. Brandon Hocking was killed in Iraq last month by an improvised explosive device.

His death is one of the latest since the president announced the end of combat operations last summer. Sgt. Hocking’s death, McCloskey writes, “serves as a grim reminder of what is fast becoming a forgotten war. The United States has spent eight years of war in Iraq, with 4,443 service members killed there. About 46,000 troops remain on the ground in “advise and assist” roles, and 23 service members — 11 this year — have been killed since the mission change.” As the reader can see, the number of deaths since this year began alone, keep increasing as our sources become more current.

Recently, the unrest in the Middle East has really put in focus the impact that the Internet Age has had on the world, and particularly in the war zone. Soldiers can Skype, and speak to their families via the Internet as well as emailing and chatting -- they can keep in close touch with families and friends without waiting for “mail call.” It has to be disturbing to them to know that they are all but forgotten to much of the American public. The same can be said for having to serve with the ridiculous rules of engagement in place which dictate how and when a soldier can fight and defend himself and his fellow soldiers.

Two Sisters From the Right received the following note from a reader who also happens to be a soldier in Iraq: “The liberal media isn't telling the public what it needs to know. Things are not getting better here no matter what BHO says. Every other day we are getting hit by IDF (indirect fire, i.e. mortars and rockets) or our patrols are being hit with IEDs or even worse EFP (explosive formed projectile, IEDs made with copper that cut through armored vehicles like a hot knife through butter). What does it take to allow soldiers to fight back? The other day we lost 2 soldiers and 12 more were wounded when a 107mm rocket landed in their living area. What did we do ? NOTHING ! They are hitting us were we "live", why can't we hit them in their houses. Oh, we might offend some sheik, or Iraqi police chief, or Iraqi officer.”

Consider, if you will, what the inability to return fire to defend themselves does to the combat veteran’s morale, especially those who were accustomed to fighting back and fighting for their lives. Now they have to sit idly by,  defenseless in the country where they lost so many of their comrades as they fought to bring people in a far- away land a decent chance at freedom. Is their sacrifice appreciated at all? Is it appreciated by the Iraqis? Does the American civilian population fully understand what they have lost, and what they have given up in order to keep the fighting away from our own soil?

After years of having the liberal media covering the war on their terms, poisoned with their bias, we don’t expect them to suddenly bring us  honesty in their reporting.  We do however want Americans to remember that American soldiers are still fighting a war in Iraq, albeit a war restricted by the idiocy of rules of engagement which impede a soldier’s inherent right to self defense. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are political hot coals for the Obama administration. Without the Iraq War, and the rising death count, Barack Hussein Obama would not have been elected President of the United States. In 2007 Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency from the steps of the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield. It was there that Lincoln delivered his “House Divided Speech” and Obama wanted to appeal to a nation divided by the continuing war in Iraq. His “hope and change” message was accompanied by his promise to end the war in Iraq and to bring the troops home.

On April 4, 2011, the 44th president of the United States once again announced his candidacy for reelection. Two years after he took office, Americans are still divided. Obama now has a war of his own in Libya, the economy is still in shambles, the war in Afghanistan has escalated, we are currently facing an imminent government shutdown, and the troops Obama promised to bring home are still in Iraq. On Monday Secretary of Defense Gates arrived in Iraq and was expected to remind the Iraqi leaders that the US withdrawal date is fast approaching. As that date nears the violence in Iraq is escalating. The Iraqis have had more than sufficient time to prepare themselves for self- government. Whatever the plans are to replace the US military in Iraq, they should be put in action immediately.

If our soldiers in Iraq cannot defend themselves from attack, they need to come home. Regardless of what the Obama loving news media attempts to tell us, let us remember that our deployed military remains in harm’s way. We will continue to support them and hold them up in our prayers. They are our heroes, our warriors, and the sacrifices that they and their family have endured will never be forgotten.

twosisters_ftr@yahoo.com

Editorial: Ryan's Budget Plan Gets The Job Done

From IBD Editorials.  No additional commentary necessary.
Two Sisters.

America's Fiscal Future: Paul Ryan's budget plan dramatically slows spending growth, gets entitlements under control and begins the arduous task of easing the nation's crippling debt load. So what's not to like?

As Congress argues over a measly $33 billion in cuts to the 2011 budget to keep the government from shutting down, the plan by House Budget Chairman Ryan for 2012 and beyond not only reverses the Democrats' profligacy but returns the U.S. to a path of fiscal responsibility.


The plan trims $6.2 trillion from President Obama's budget (see chart), driving outlays back below 20% of GDP, their historic average, and well below the 25% in Obama's budget.


As for the squealing of the Democrats over vicious "cuts," spending actually grows from 2011 to 2021 under Ryan's plan by $1.12 trillion — an increase of 31%, or 3.1% a year. So those who say government is being "slashed" are being disingenuous.


In contrast, since Democrats took over Congress in 2006, spending has risen $1.2 trillion, or 44%. That amounts to a yearly gain of 9% that has pushed us to the brink of insolvency.


One thing that Ryan does slash is the deficit — by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. That's $4.4 trillion less for our children and grandchildren to repay. More importantly, debt peaks at a projected 74.5% of GDP in 2013, then recedes to 67.5% by 2021 — vs. 87.4% under Obama's budget.


This is accomplished mainly by reforming entitlement and welfare spending in ways that lower costs while giving people more choices.


Ryan starts by overturning ObamaCare, saving hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes. Then, for the first time ever, he proposes serious reforms for Medicare, the greatest danger to America's fiscal health.


Instead of government paying providers directly and deciding what their services are worth, new retirees would receive "premium support" to help them buy insurance on the open market — similar to the much-envied plan that Congress itself has now.


Ryan also reforms the welfare system, giving block grants to states for both Medicaid and food stamps. This gets the federal government out of the business of micromanaging Americans' choices and puts states in charge, as it should be.


None of this, of course, works without a healthy economy. To that end, following President Reagan's notably successful lead, Ryan proposes a bold tax reform — one that reduces the top corporate and individual tax rates from 36% and 39.6%, respectively, to 25%, and gets rid of many of what Ryan calls "deductions and loopholes" that make our tax code hideously complex and costly.


This is a great plan. And it's one that Americans, weary of the Big Government meddling of recent years, are ready to embrace. The only question is: Can Democrats muster the political wisdom and courage to support something from the opposition that would work?

We CHALLENGE the Democrats to reply!

Copyright© 2000-2011 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.



No Clear And Present Danger

In the two years, and two months since Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, we have not willingly sat down to hear him speak.  We prefer to read the transcripts of his speeches after the fact.  Reading his lies doesn't seem to affect our hypertension as much as watching Obama read from his well placed teleprompters, while attempting to appear sincere when addressing the American people.  Normally when Obama speaks, we turn off the television, or switch channels.  Tonight we listened intently to most of his speech.  Our plan was to  listen objectively, take notes, and reserve judgement until the speech had ended, but it was not to be.  Obama's innate arrogance is one of the many character deficiencies that the man is incapable of controlling, and we are incapable of tolerating.  When he reached the point in his speech where he began to seemingly gloat in self congratulation,  and began to compare the actions in Libya to the war in Iraq, he totally lost us...click, the screen went black.  It'd be back to reading the text again for us.


Obama began his "update to the American people" by recognizing the United States military.  We appreciated his acknowledgement of them and are  sure that most Americans did as well.  In the next very carefully crafted paragraph he appealed to the American sense of pride for being the nation that has traditionally taken a leading role in righting the wrongs of the world.   Continuing in that vein he said, "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That's what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks."


Our values? Yes. Our interests? No. We have no interests in Libya other that to see Moammar Gaddafi's gone!  Obama went on to talk about  Libya's geographical location between Tunisia and Egypt and the danger of those countries being flooded by refugees from Libya.  We did not disagree.  The world doesn't need anymore  displaced refugees.  Just as Ronald Reagan did, we too believe that Moammar Gaddafi is a "madman", and should not be allowed to turn his military might on his own people. We also couldn't argue with using Gaddafi's ill gotten millions to help the Libyans rebuild -- better Gaddafi's money than the American taxpayer's.


We listened to the pacifist candidate turned warrior president, talk about issuing orders for Libya, the continuing war in Afghanistan and ending the combat in Iraq.  In his own, inimitable self serving way, Barack Hussein Obama, who opposed war and the use of  military force,  uttered these words:  "I've made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests."


What we discern in those words is the 2012 presidential candidate hard at work.  Did he make it clear to his Left Liberal base, or is he launching an appeal for a new support group.


Just this past week ,  Secretary of Defense Gates, in an interview with ABC Senior Correspondent Jake Tapper said about Libya,  "No, no.  It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States"  However, in Gates' opinion, what was of interest was, " The  engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans,"  "The general humanitarian  question that was at stake,” he said. 


We did not  finish watching Obama speak, but  have read the complete unedited text of his speech.  It was obviously written to appeal to the American public's natural sense of patriotism.   It is probably the most American-president-like speech he's ever read, with the exception that an American president wouldn't authorize the use of force against another country without first asking for Congress' authorization -- as George W. Bush did.


When Hillary Clinton was a senator in 2007, contemplating a bid for the presidency, she took a tough stand with President Bush, and on the floor of the Senate she stated:  “If the administration believes that any -- any -- use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority"   Appearing in  the same interview with ABC's Tapper she had obviously undergone a change of mind about the president needing Congress' authority.  


When Tapper  asked her, in regards to Libya  "Why not go to Congress?" Clinton replied, “Well, we would welcome congressional support, but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”  She continued, “I think that this had a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling.”   Clinton was of course referring to candidate Obama's assertion, also in 2007, that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”  which we all know well, is exactly what now president Obama did ten days ago.


In his speech Obama assured the American people, " This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday," and the United States will act in a supporting role.  Really?  And what nation will invest as much man power, equipment, ordnance, airplanes, and naval vessels, as the United States?    This exchange leads us to believe that Liberal Democrats are truly guilty of believing their own propaganda.  They DO believe that those of us on the right are rubes incapable of seeing through their charade.


The fact is that Obama didn't answer the most searing questions for us.  Who are these rebels whom we are helping?  What about the reports that some of the rebel leaders are really members of al Qaeda?   Again we ask, why did Obama wait so long?  It seems to us that the rebels were asking for help BEFORE the UN resolution, the Libyan people were being slaughtered, BEFORE the UN resolution. Libya's geographical location remains the same BEFORE and AFTER the UN resolution and the administration did not feel any humanitarian urges then?   Libya has in the past, but not now, presented a danger to American interests.  If the need to intervene was "humanitarian" why did we let the massacre and retreat of the rebel forces continue until it was almost too late?  Why was it necessary to have the Arab League's involvement?   This was an obvious case of humanitarianism mixed with politics.  There might be other factors not yet ascertained.


As the president spoke, there were atrocities being committed in other oil rich Muslim countries.  In Syria, since the uprising began, 62 persons have been killed by the Syrian government.  What about Bahrain?  Are we not going to issue our support for those who seek freedom  and democracy?   Is this adminitration involved in selective "regime change"?  Isn't that the goal in Libya?  Having all that oil, and a government friendly to the U.S. -- quite a coup.


After all the criticism that the previous administration endured at the hands of Liberals, it is extremely ironic to see, particularly this anti-war, anti-military administration supporting and defending the bombing and killling, without Congressional authorization, of a country that did not directly attack us.  What say the Liberals now to our involvement in an OIL rich country which did not present a clear and present danger to America or American interests? 


Obama had plenty of time to consult with Congress before the recess but he chose not to do so.   Instead he waited for the Arab League's involvement in a UN resolution to act.   The president cannot be allowed to continue  deploying and engaging our military in actions such as the one in Libya, authorized only by a resolution in the United Nations Security Council.  By the same token, the United Nations cannot be allowed to have control of the United States military at any time.  


In 1973, Congress passed   The War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) over the veto of President Nixon on November 7,  to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. "


Barack Hussein Obama seems to have a way with ignoring our laws as well as our Constitution.  Now that he has committed our military and our tax dollars to a third front in a Muslim country, Obama has to make sure that Gaddafi IS defeated and ousted.   As other Middle Eastern despots and tyrants continue to suppress their people and deny them the liberty they seek is Obama going to send them the message that the "coalition" will not tolerate the slaughter of the oppressed people?  That hardly seems likely in light of Secretary Clinton's statement this past weekend that  Bashar Assad of Syria is a reformer, unlike Gaddafi. 


This administration is a mass of inconsistencies and disimulation.  Do they consider us to be idiots because we place more value on those principles which they so cavalierly eschew?   Where are all the peace seeking anti war protesters now that their revered leader has shown his other side?   Does their messiah have feel of clay?  Barack Hussein Obaba is simply a man, a politician who wants to be re-elected to the highest office in this land.  Every decision he makes, every word he utters, will be done with one purpose in mind, re-election. 


After watching and reading Obama's speech on Libya we still have unaswered questions.  We are particularly bothered by the whole Arab League connection.  We are repulsed by the Left's insincerity and hypocrisy.  We won't erase the years that we, those of us who supported the previous administration, were called vile name by the elitist, arrogant Left which included Barack Obama.  We have not received satisfactory answers, and resent being played for fools.  It is our hope that American voters can see through Obama's new personna, and ask themselves, was this speech really an update on Libya, or  the launching of re-elect Obama 2012?

Two Sisters

A Political Reality Show

We are thrilled to feature one of our favorite authors in tonight's post.  Burt Prelutzky's biting political satire can be read in his books which include two of our favorites, "Conservatives Are from Mars, Liberals Are from San Francisco: 101 Reasons I'm Happy I Left the Left" and " Liberals: America's Termites (It's A Shame That Liberals, Unlike Hamsters, Don't Eat Their Young)"   More about Burt Prelutsky, here.  Readers can access the Patriot Post on the web.
Two Sisters

By Burt Prelutsky

I am constantly writing myself notes, jotting down the things I hear oozing out of the mouths of politicians. But occasionally when it comes time to use the quotes in an article, I find myself wondering if our elected officials actually spoke those words or if I had been hallucinating.


I mean, when some of the Tea Party Republicans were trying to introduce the notion of fiscal responsibility to Capital Hill by defunding the NEA, did Harry Reid actually take the floor to defend a cowboy poetry festival that annually draws dozens of tourists to Nevada? For one thing, if the Democrats are going to fight over such things, don't they realize that they sound exactly like those dippy women who divorce guys like Donald Trump and, in the battle over alimony, insist that they really need $20,000-a-month for their dog trainer and another 25 grand for daily pedicures?


For another thing, I hope I never again have to hear the words "cowboy" and "poetry" uttered in the same sentence.


Speaking of dumb things, did I actually hear Martin Sheen compare Charlie Sheen's situation to that of a cancer victim? If so, Charlie's not the only one in the family who needs to have his head examined.


On the other hand, as I listened to Charlie's endless rants about how special he is, being, as he is, a warlock, I found myself thinking that he was only saying out loud the exact same things that all those left-wing Hollywood crackpots believe about themselves. When you see and hear folks like Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Danny Glover, Sean Penn and George Clooney, scolding the rest of us, describing us as rubes, fascists and racists, don't you suspect they're wondering, "Why am I even wasting my time with these puny little creatures who all wish they could be me, me with my millions of dollars, my battalion of servants and sycophants, and my veins filled with tiger blood"?


Like most sane people, I was delighted to see the two oafs named Schiller dumped by National Public Radio. I would have been even happier if I didn't immediately have to see Juan Williams on Fox, once again chastising the left-wing elitists at NPR. Why is it that nobody dares challenge Mr. Williams by pointing out that it was the exact same place, pouring out the same sort of left-wing drivel, when he was working there quite contentedly for over 10 years? And after all that time, he didn't suddenly come to his senses and quit; he was fired. So, for all of his self-righteous bluster, the only thing that's changed are the folks who sign his checks.


For sheer chutzpah, it's hard to beat Sen. John Ensign, who claimed his decision not to seek re-election in 2012 has nothing to do with his adulterous affair with a staff worker, but, rather, his concern with how a campaign would affect his family. How odd that he never wondered how his affair would affect them.


By the way, with the frequency that politicians are caught having affairs with members of their staff, are we to assume that these days typing and filing skills are strictly optional, while taking dictation is essential?


Proving that even a guy who looks like Central Casting's idea of a president can be as dumb as a rock, allow me to present for your inspection Mitt Romney. As we look forward to a campaign in 2012, in which ObamaCare figures to be a major issue, this schnook defends RomneyCare! His defense is that it was created to deal with Massachusetts' needs. Who's managing his campaign -- Moe, Curly or David Axelrod?


If he were as smart as he is rich and good-looking, Romney would have said, "I regret to admit it, but my health care plan proved to be an unmitigated disaster. But I, unlike Barack Obama, learned from my mistake."


I believe that most Americans will accept that governors, senators and even presidents, make mistakes. In fact, they've come to expect it. But what they resent are politicians who are too stubborn or too simpleminded to acknowledge theirs and who, instead, double down.


But doing his best to take the heat off Romney's gaffe, we had Newt Gingrich blaming his tawdry affairs on his patriotism. I must say that, as excuses for adultery go, this one had the virtue of originality. But only in the sense that a kid explaining to his teacher that the reason he wasn't turning in his report was because a Martian had eaten it.


I never thought I'd say it, but I just might toss my hat in the ring and run in 2012. If things continue the way they have been, I just might be the last Republican standing. What's more, I am over the age of 35, I was born in Chicago and I'd be happy to show anyone who's interested my long form birth certificate.



"The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )"

Copyright © 2011 The Patriot Post.



Obama: The Picture Of Clarity

What a refreshing surprise!  This gem of an article was found in the Chicago Tribune, President Obama's state.  It is a beautifully written account of a very serious matter, with just a hint of dry wit.  Not surprisingly the comments to Mr. Kass' article are not too favorable by the Chicago crowds.   Mr. Kass captured our attention with the title and we decided to share the find with our readers whom we're sure will be more understanding of his opinion.
Two Sisters

While Obama searches for clarity, we're plunged into another war

President Barack Obama unmasked himself Tuesday.



by  John Kass

Chicago Tribune

March 23, 2011

He was in El Salvador, standing with Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, when reporters asked him about his war in Libya.

It is indeed his war. He started it. He gave the order to launch the missiles over the weekend. And now the man who ran for president as an anti-war candidate owns his very own war.

But there has been confusion over which member of his coalition will command the war. Will Obama ask a foreign general to direct American troops? Will President Nicolas Sarkozy of France take the coalition lead?

On Tuesday, Obama was asked about these command issues. It wasn't a trick. It should have been expected. He stood there, and he opened his mouth.

"I would expect that over the next several days you will have clarity and a meeting of the minds of all those who are participating in the process," Obama said.

We'll have clarity in a few days?

Clarity in a few days, Mr. President?

You don't wait to find clarity a few days after you begin a war. You'd better have complete clarity before you ever give the order to fire in the first place.

Days after ordering the launch of cruise missiles at around $1 million a pop isn't the time to find clarity, Mr. President.

Days after you bomb a country — even one run by a murderous psychopath like Moammar Gadhafi — isn't the time to begin searching for clarity.

The president must find clarity before beginning such an enterprise. To do otherwise is to risk not only American lives and his own presidency and political fortunes, but to risk America's future security and its place among nations.

There wasn't much drama in that quote in El Salvador, so I wonder whether Mr. Obama's Search for Clarity will remain in the news cycle or will drop mercifully from public notice.

Given the free pass he's had on this Libya business, I doubt whether it will become a slogan.

But he did say it — in front of TV cameras. And it would be laughably ridiculous, except that lives are at stake.

I suspect that every world leader saw it, and their generals saw it, from China to Russia and beyond, and they all took his measure and saw what was in him.

His enemies, the Republicans, say that if you take away his teleprompter, he's quite vulnerable. He's misspoken many times, but so has every president.

If this were merely a matter of rhetoric or misspeaking, I wouldn't mention it.

But that passive discussion about clarity, coming from the mouth of the president, underscores another problem that's been noticed by Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate.

He hasn't been clear on the war at all.

Before he ordered the strikes against Gadhafi, he'd argued that the Libyan dictator had to go, that driving him from power was the important thing.

Then that argument changed, and Obama and his advisers said we had to save the people of Libya from a bloody civil war. So it became a humanitarian mission.   Sort of.

Naturally, members of Congress are shrieking, since he attacked without asking their permission. Liberal U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat, brought up a quote from the past:  "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

And who said it? Barack Obama, to The Boston Globe in 2007.

Early polls show that only 50 percent of the American people are in support of Obama's attack on Libya. Historically, such numbers are much higher at the outset of a war. So expect the numbers to get worse.

Sen. Mark Kirk, the Illinois Republican and U.S. naval intelligence officer, was speaking at the City Club of Chicago the other day, and I caught up to him there.

"The president needs to clearly define the war aims and who is in command," said Kirk, who supports the war in Libya.

"My hope is that when he returns to the United States, he needs to speak to the nation because he's just taken the country to war," Kirk said. "And a presidential address from the Oval Office is necessary to outline the mission, how he expects to achieve it and who is in charge."

When the president returns to the U.S. on Wednesday, and if his teleprompter is working, he'll put on a blue suit and a red tie and a white shirt and look quite presidential.

He'll speak forcefully. He'll speak reasonably. He will appear to the world like a leader.

And he won't look anything like the back bencher in the Illinois Legislature who never confronted power and spent his entire career accommodating the bosses so he could climb the political ladder. He won't look anything like that fellow who voted "present" time after time after time.


Instead, he'll look the picture of clarity.


jskass@tribune.com  

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune