2000 Dead Soldiers and Obama Can Still Do No Wrong!

What’s disturbing about this picture?-You Decide:

Posted on FrontPage Magazine-By Daniel Greenfield-On September 30, 2012:

“The death toll in Afghanistan has reached 2,000. What used to be a grim milestone under Bush is now just something that no one talks about because it would embarrass the man responsible for many of those deaths.

“It was once President Barack Obama’s “war of necessity.” Now, it’s America’s forgotten war. The Afghan conflict generates barely a whisper on the U.S. presidential campaign trail. It’s not a hot topic at the office water cooler or in the halls of Congress — even though more than 80,000 American troops are still fighting here and dying at a rate of one a day.”

Who’s really ignoring the war? The media. And there’s a reason that the media is ignoring it. Obama has no further plan for Afghanistan beyond keeping American advisers there for another two years. His Afghanistan surge has failed and Afghan forces are openly murdering Americans.

“Attacks by Afghan soldiers or police — or insurgents disguised in their uniforms — have killed 52 American and other NATO troops so far this year.”

It was one of those insider attacks that raised the death toll to 2,000 dead. Bush would have been asked about that. Obama won’t be. Every death was a news story under Bush, under Obama it’s only a statistic.

Obama is untouchable and any of his policies are accordingly also beyond criticism. Whether it’s Egypt, Libya or Afghanistan, we have gone to a Soviet foreign policy model where everything our leaders do is right and the wrongs cannot be discussed at all.

The inability to criticize Obama extends to every area under his purview. Any criticism that does occur has to be couched in blaming Bush. And what happens if Obama gets a second term? Will his disasters eight years later still be blamed on Bush? And how many of those disasters will take place because the media refuses to do its job.

Reports on the failure of Obama’s surge are also few and far between… but still quite damning.

“According to reports, various Taliban and related attacks against NATO powers were approximately 2,700 in August of 2009 when Obama made his contrary-to-campaign promised-move to step up the nation’s military assistance in Afghanistan. Three years later, in August of 2012, there were more attacks – nearly 3,000.”

The Taliban have not been beaten, the transition is not working and Afghanistan has been lost. Meanwhile Obama is bringing in yet a fourth commander, but what would have been considered a sign of indecisiveness and chaos under Bush is mentioned without comment.

“Although Allen is not being forced out, “the president wants somebody who can take a fresh look at the effort in Afghanistan and isn’t an architect of the current strategy,” said David Barno, a retired Army general who headed the war in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and now is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.”

How many more “fresh looks” are we going to get?”



Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to and/or further support the above article and/or blog post-You Decide:

I. Is It Time to Start Bombing Our “Allies” in Afghanistan?-Posted on FrontPage Magazine-By Daniel Greenfield-On September 30, 2012:

“Here’s the latest good news from Obama’s successful surge and end of mission in A-stan.

“U.S. military deaths in the Afghan war have reached 2,000, a cold reminder of the human cost of an 11-year-old conflict that now garners little public interest at home as the United States prepares to withdraw most of its combat forces by the end of 2014. The toll has climbed steadily in recent months with a spate of attacks by Afghan army and police — supposed allies — against American and NATO troops.”

And the toll keeps growing. Now I’m going to skip over the grim 2000 dead milestone, even though if Ted Koppel were still boring viewers on Nightline and Bush were in office, the 2000 dead number would be followed by Ted Koppel sonorously reading all 2000 names, while mispronouncing half of them against the protests of their families.

It’s not the 2000 dead number, so much as it’s the wasted lives. There is no plan for victory in Afghanistan. Obama is just dragging out his defeat with no regard for the lives of the soldiers there. Meanwhile the Afghans are clearly at war with us.

“A NATO soldier and a civilian contractor were killed in Afghanistan Saturday, hours after the United States said joint raids with Afghan forces were returning to normal.

The incident happened in eastern Afghanistan, NATO officials said. ISAF said in a statement that the incident occurred while an ISAF unit was manning a temporary check point in an area near and Afghan National Army unit. The statement said the shooting occurred following a short conversation between NATO and Afghan personnel. In an ensuing exchange of fire, three Afghan troops were killed.

The attack came hours after U.S. officials in Washington said joint small raids with Afghan forces were resuming after being halted early this month following an increase insider attacks, also known as green-on-blue attacks.

Dozens of Afghan forces have also died in insider attacks. But the rising toll and spread of strikes against foreign forces has touched the nerves of NATO and U.S. officials.

“I’m mad as hell about them, to be honest with you,” Gen. John Allen, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told CBS’ “60 Minutes”.”

Well here’s a thought, if our Afghan allies are now our enemies, then maybe it’s time to scrap the reconstruction and just do as much damage as possible to any and every non-NATO militia and military force in Afghanistan on the working theory that they are all our enemies and all at war with us.

Either that or we could hand out booklets to Afghan troops telling them not to be offended over cultural differences, even though those cultural differences have existed all along and are clearly not the reason for the new spurt of violence.”



II. President Obama and General John Allen should be prosecuted for the deaths of every one of the fifty troops murdered by their Afghan "allies" this year!-Posted on Jihad Watch-By Robert-On September 30, 2012:

“Barack Obama and General John Allen should be prosecuted for the deaths of every one of the fifty troops murdered by their Afghan “allies” this year. They are all victims of the politically correct unwillingness to accept unpleasant realities about Islam: that it teaches hatred of and warfare against unbelievers, the virtue of deceit in war, and the impermissibility of cooperating with or allying with infidels on a permanent and lasting basis. “Afghan inside attack kills 2 Americans, 2 Afghans, marking 2,000 US troop deaths,” from the Associated Press, September 30 (thanks to Kenneth):

“An Afghan soldier turned his gun on American troops at a checkpoint in the country’s east, killing two Americans and at least two fellow members of Afghanistan’s army in a shooting that marked both the continuance of a disturbing trend of insider attacks and the 2,000th U.S. troop death in the long-running war, officials said Sunday.

The string of insider attacks is one of the greatest threats to NATO’s mission in the country, endangering a partnership key to training up Afghan security forces and withdrawing international troops.

Saturday’s shooting took place at an Afghan army checkpoint just outside a joint U.S.-Afghan base in Wardak province, said Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman.

“Initial reports indicate that a misunderstanding happened between Afghan army soldiers and American soldiers,” Shahid said. He said investigators had been sent to the site to try to figure out what happened....

Afghan soldiers and policemen—or militants in their uniforms—have gunned down more than 50 foreign troops so far this year, eroding the trust between coalition forces and their Afghan partners. An equal number of Afghan policemen and soldiers also died in these attacks, giving them reason as well to be suspicious of possible infiltrators within their ranks.

The attacks are taking a toll on the partnership between international and Afghan forces, prompting the U.S. military to restrict operations with small-sized Afghan units earlier this month.”

The military didn’t restrict them enough.

“The close contact—with coalition forces working side by side with Afghan troops as advisers, mentors and trainers—is a key part of the U.S. strategy for preparing the Afghans to take the lead in security operations as the U.S. and other nations prepare to pull out their last combat troops at the end of 2014, just 27 months away....”

And obviously it’s working very, very well.”



III. In southern Afghanistan, concerns about what comes next!-Posted on The Washington Post-By Kevin Sieff-On September 30, 2012:

“GARMSIR, AFGHANISTAN — On the wall of his office in this district’s U.S. Marine headquarters, where other commanding officers might display photos of children and wives, Capt. Devin Blowes keeps a roster of bearded men whose names he’s recently learned to pronounce.

They are the same tribal elders Blowes’s predecessors relied on during some of the bloodiest battles of the war. Now, as the Marines draw down from southern Helmand province, these men will determine the future of Garmsir.

Tribal leaders are the backbone of this strategically vital region near Afghanistan’s southern border with Pakistan. If they refuse to support the government after NATO forces leave, U.S. officials say there’s a good chance the Taliban could make a vigorous return. But if traditional leaders present a united front against the insurgency, bolstering the legitimacy of the Afghan army and police, officials contend that a beleaguered Taliban won’t be able to reconquer the district.

Many tribal elders are still on the fence, engaging both the Taliban and the Americans just as the Marines complete their most dramatic withdrawal to date. More than half of the corps’ 17,000 troops will leave Helmand by the end of September. A year ago, they were dispersed across more than 60 bases and outposts in Garmsir alone — a measure of the importance they placed on beating back the insurgency in what was once a Taliban haven. By August, the stations were down to three.

That swift departure has made some of the elders pictured on Blowes’s wall nervous. He has sketched a red dot next to those who “play both sides” — men who shake his hand in district meetings but express doubts about the prospect of a post-Marine Helmand, hedging their bets by supporting the Taliban.

He has sketched a blue dot — a sign of trust and confidence in a district known for sordid alliances and obfuscation — next to only one face: a willowy elder from the influential Alizai tribe named Amir Shah Jan.

Since the Marines converged on southern Helmand in 2009, Jan has offered crucial guidance, often at his own peril. When his son was nearly killed by a suicide bomber, the Marines helped provide medical treatment. Last year, they facilitated his appointment as a local police commander. When he delivered information about the insurgency, officers listened carefully and often made arrests. Like other elders here, Jan is a key conduit to thousands of residents who are more conscious of the district’s tribal hierarchy than they are of the area’s newly installed political leadership.

Jan has long said that he needs the Marines for security. But the Marines might need him more than he needs them. If they can’t prevent the dot next to his picture from changing from blue to red, they risk losing hard-fought gains.

A strong head start:

On paper, it looks as if the odds are in favor of the U.S.-backed government. There are about 3,000 Afghan soldiers and police in Garmsir and only 150 or so hardened Taliban fighters, according to a U.S. intelligence estimate. Although Garmsir was once the scene of major violence, ambushes and firefights in the district have largely subsided. The Marines describe their gift to the Afghans as “white space” — a strong head start against the Taliban. It’s a gift they know could be easily squandered.

“If the locals, particularly the elders, don’t trust their own government, they’re going to look for justice and protection elsewhere,” said one U.S. official in Garmsir.

Like many other Afghans in Garmsir, Jan assumes the American departure will hasten a Taliban ascension. So when he came to Forward Operating Base Delhi last month to meet with Marine and civilian leaders, it was with a sense of urgency.

Jan had a tip for the U.S. troops. He had recently turned in a man named Abdul Ali to the police — a local he described as a well-connected Talib. But rumor had it that Ali was going to bribe his way out of prison. The same thing had happened before, Jan said. He had turned Ali in to authorities, but he was later freed and went back to aiding the insurgency.

“We can’t let this happen again,” Jan said. He had crafted a letter signed by more than a dozen elders underscoring the point.

As they had during Jan’s past visits, the Marines nodded and scribbled notes. U.S. officials in Helmand acknowledged that it is not uncommon for guilty men to be released after paying bribes or pulling strings.

Later that evening, at a security briefing, Blowes told his men to follow up on Jan’s accusation.

“This is a guy we trust,” he said. “He has taken personal risks to work with us and to support the government.”

But Jan has little faith in the government, which he calls corrupt and ineffective. Within the past few months, the district police chief, district governor and top prosecutor have all been dismissed in separate cases of malfeasance.

“You’ve done a lot of good here,” Jan told Blowes. “But you failed to build a strong government.”

“We didn’t fail,” Blowes replied. “We just haven’t succeeded yet.”

Intertribal tensions:

At FOB Delhi, Jan’s accusation about Ali came to symbolize his broader take on the injustice and ineptitude of the Afghan government. Maybe the Marines could prove him wrong, he hoped. Maybe there was still time to fix the system before they left. After all, he said, Abdul Ali’s release would mean a threat to his own life.

“If the Marines don’t stay until there is a good and transparent government, all the blood they lost here will be wasted,” he said.

But when Marines and Afghan police officers started interrogating Ali, the picture became more muddled.

Yes, Ali said, he had aided the insurgency; he had harbored members of the Taliban in his home. But he had done so only because Jan had threatened to steal his property and the Taliban had offered to protect him. This wasn’t about the insurgency or the government, he said. It was about a personal rivalry.

Abdul Ali’s defense appeared to check out. Even the Afghan detention roster said he was in custody for a “land dispute,” not for abetting the Taliban.

Suddenly, the Marines found themselves in the middle of a messy intertribal feud. Further complicating the judicial process: Abdul Ali had not formally confessed in an Afghan court to working with the Taliban.

“For now, we have nothing at all,” said Khiali Jan, head of the Helmand police force’s counterterrorism unit, after several weeks of investigating. “We’ve told the elders, if you don’t bring evidence and proof, we will have to release him.”

But the prospect of releasing Abdul Ali — and letting down Amir Shah Jan — was potentially devastating, even though the facts remained uncertain.

Southern Helmand is full of such vagaries. Eleven years into the war, the line between good and evil, ally and enemy, is as blurry as it has ever been.

Now, Amir Shah Jan is waiting — not only for a ruling on the Abdul Ali case but also for the more important verdict on the future of his district. The past few months of relative peace in Garmsir have been a rare glimpse into a vision he shares with the Marines.

“But for this to last,” he said, “everything needs to go right.”



IV. WHY ARE AMERICAN TROOPS STILL IN AFGHANISTAN?-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On September 29, 2012:  




VI. Why They Love Usama, Hate Obama, and How Obama Uses the Same Tactic at Home!-Posted on The Lid-By Barry Rubin-On October 7, 2012:




VIII. Obama Doctrine Exposed!-Posted on Israel National News-By Daniel Greenfield-On October 15, 2012:


Report: Islamist radicals find warm welcome in Obama White House!-Posted on The Daily Caller-By Neil Munro-On October 22, 2012:


Video: Trevor Louden: An Urgent Message for America!-Posted on YouTube.com-By keywiki-On October 18, 2012:


Obama Faces Backlash on Military Budget Cuts!-Posted on NewsMax.com-By David A. Patten-On October 23, 2012:


WHITE HOUSE BLASTED FOR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION LEAKS: ‘Citizens grand jury’ accuses administration of using secrets to ‘bolster’ political standing!’-Posted on WND.com-By BOB UNRUH-On November 2, 2012:


Fitzpatrick: Obama’s Replacement of Commanders is Treason!-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On November 4, 2012:


Last Chance to Save our Constitution!-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On November 4, 2012:


Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney!-Posted on Duffle Blog-By DREW-On November 7, 2012:


George Soros – Commander-in-Chief?-Posted on Godfather Politics-By GIACOMO-On October 17, 2011:

“The title of Commander-in-Chief has always been reserved for the President of the United States.  This dates back to our first president George Washington who was the Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Army that gained America’s Independence.

However, it seems that the title is now being passed on to the person controlling the current president.

Billionaire George Soros has been controlling President Obama much like a puppeteer controls his marionette by pulling the right strings to make him do what he wants.  Among all of his business ventures, Soros has a financial connection to the recently developed oil industry in Uganda which is estimated to be sitting on 2-6 billion barrels of crude oil.

Revenue Watch Institute, an organization that is funded by Soros, was instrumental in developing Uganda’s oil guidelines in 2008.  RWI provided the grant funding for Africa Institute for Energy Governance which in turn was used to create Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda.  PWYP’s principle task has been to help establish Uganda’s oil policies and to streamline them to help make it more transparent and promote accountability.

However, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has pretty much taken control of the country’s oil industry and has consequently disregarded the guidelines that Soros and company established

Soros also owns an outfit known as Open Society Institute.  OSI is one of the three non-government entities that financially support Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.  GCRP is a military policy that is being used by some to urge Obama to take action in Uganda.  OSI has a number of offices in Uganda.

Purely a coincidence I’m sure, but some of the authors and advisors for Responsibility to Protect are associated with Soros and serve on boards of other organizations with him.  One of those is the National Security Council special adviser on human rights to President Obama, Samantha Powers.

Ugandan Youth Action Fund is run by Soros’ Open Society Institute.  Its purpose is to “identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals.”

Another Soros owned organization; the International Crisis Group issued a report in 2010 to Obama and key lawmakers.  The ICC report states, “To the U.S. government: Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralizes all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the U.N. and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations.”

Upon the urgings of master puppeteer George Soros, President Obama has sent an initial force of about 100 military advisors to Uganda.  Supposedly, their purpose is to advise the country’s officials to capture or eliminate the rebel leader Joseph Kony.  Kony heads the rebel force that calls themselves the Lord’s Resistance Army.  He has been charged with human rights violations and is on the US list of terrorists.

So what is the real reason US military advisors are being sent to Uganda?  Is it for the interest of the US or for our national security or is it to help protect Soros’ financial investments?  This also brings up the question about who is the real Commander-in-Chief, President Obama or George Soros?”



Note:  Mr. George Soros is one of the most powerful men on earth. Since 1979, Soros’ foundation network—whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) -- has dispensed more than $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. With assets of $1.93 billion as of 2008, OSI alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these various groups. Following are Soros’ agendas relating to our armed forces that are advanced by groups that Soros and OSI support financially-You Decide:

I.  Organizations that depict virtually all American military actions as unwarranted and immoral:

  • Amnesty International: In 2005, this group’s then-executive director William Schulz alleged that the United States had become “a leading purveyor and practitioner” of torture. Irene Khan, who charged that the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the U.S. was housing several hundred captured terror suspects, “has become the gulag of our time.” Schulz’s remarks were echoed by Amnesty’s then-secretary general
  • Global Exchange was founded by Medea Benjamin, a pro-Castro radical who helped establish a project known as Iraq Occupation Watch for the purpose of encouraging widespread desertion by “conscientious objectors” in the U.S. military. In December 2004, Benjamin announced that Global Exchange would be sending aid to the families of terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Iraq.

II. Organizations that advocate America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending:

  • The American Friends Service Committee, which views America as the world’s chief source of international strife, has long had a friendly relationship with the Communist Party USALamenting that “the United States spends 59% of the discretionary federal budget on military-related expenses,” the Committee seeks to “realig[n] national spending priorities and to increase the portion of the budget that is spent on housing, quality education for all, medical care, and fair wages.” In 2000, George Soros himself was a signatory to a letter titled “Appeal for Responsible Security” that appeared in The New York Times. The letter called upon the U.S. government “to commit itself unequivocally to negotiate the worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons,” and to participate in “the global de-alerting of nuclear weapons and deep reduction of nuclear stockpiles.”


Guide To The George Soros Network: A Guide to The Political Left!-Posted on DiscoverTheNetWorks.org:


Note:  The following eye opening article and/or blog post reveals a George Soros funded unincorporated association by the name of “Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG)”, which was established in 1999 and consists of more than 50 private and public foundations that give a portion of their $27 billion in combined assets to leftist organizations that undermine the war on terror in several interrelated ways: (a) by characterizing the United States as an evil, militaristic, oppressive nation that exploits vulverable populations all over the globe; (b) by accusing the U.S. of having provoked, through its unjust policies and actions, the terror attacks against it, and consequently casting those attacks as self-defensive measures taken in response to American transgressions; and (c) by depicting America’s military and legislative actions against terror as unjustified, extreme, and immoral-You Decide: 

Funding the War Against the War on Terror!-Posted on FrontPageMagazine.com-By: John Perazzo –On October 6, 2006:


Note: My following recent blog posts relate to and/or further support the above articles and/or blog posts and videos-You Decide:

Hold Obama Accountable For Libya!


Arming Our Enemies!


“Innocence” Film a Premeditated Provocation for Islamic Terror?


The Film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ — Made By Terrorists?


Dishonest Media Avoids Truth about Obama Through Diversions!


NoteMy following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that reveal: 1) the live presentation by Joel Gilbert, his DVD Film titled "Dreams From My Real Father," along with the newly released film titled "The Unvetted”; 2) the Islamic infiltration inside our government armed with our secrets, to include the President's secret link to Hamas; 3) the Islamic infiltration inside our military; 4) the Communist infiltration inside our government, to Include President Obama's secret link to Communists; 5) the George Soros connection, to include the shared agendas of George Soros and the President; and 6) the disastrous results of these infiltrations, links and connections-You Decide: 

The Vetting: ‘Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection’! (Part 1):


The Vetting: 'Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection'! (Part 2):


The Vetting: 'Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection'! (Part 3):


The Vetting: ‘Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection’! (Part 4):


Continue Reading My Following Blog Posts That Relate To This Disturbing Issue:


Is Israel the next Arab Facebook Campaign?


Is George Soros deliberately handicapping American energy?


Will The New START Undermine Our Nuclear Security?


Nuclear Summit Part of Obama Administration’s ‘Fantasy Foreign Policy’!


The Military Pays the Price for Obama’s Agenda!


Rules of Engagement Killing Marines and U.S. Soldiers!


Special Ops Groups Slam Obama Over Bin Laden Bragging, Leaks! (Part 1)


Special Ops Groups Slam Obama Over Bin Laden Bragging, Leaks! (Part 2):


Veterans and members of our Armed Forces under attack!


Is the Obama Regime Targeting Veterans? (Part 1)


Is the Obama Regime Targeting Veterans? (Part 2)


It’s Getting Very Serious Now!


Follow-up Letter To NM U.S. Senator Udall Requesting Congressional Investigation Into Allegations Made By Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez-On October 4, 2012:


Follow-up Letter to NM Governor Martinez Requesting The Removal of President Obama From The NM 2012 Presidential Election Ballot!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez on October 4, 2012:


Follow-up Letter To NM U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman Regarding My Request For Full-scale Investigation Into Allegations Made By Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez-On October 5, 2012:


Follow-up Letter To NM U.S. Congressman Martin Heinrich Regarding My Request For Full-scale Investigation Into Allegations Made By Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez-On October 5, 2012:



Letter to Congressman Allen West Regarding Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse Allegations!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez-On October 5, 2012:


Note: The following videos seem extremely appropriate today:


A Republic, If You Can Keep It!


I Stand For America!


The Fightin Side of Me!


Freedom Isn’t Free:


Declaration to Restore the Republic!


Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts, please copy website and paste it on your browser.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may be considered controversial by this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!


Semper Fi!


Views: 1411


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Mark Rybeck on September 30, 2012 at 9:53pm

Everyday we get closer to The 2nd American Revolution.

Comment by Grace Polaris on September 30, 2012 at 8:33pm

This is devastating. We must do all we can to ensure that obama does not get back into office.

Comment by Traci Mccormick on September 30, 2012 at 4:36pm

Cuz we have a spineless Congress a corrupt AG ..on & on we go..we need nice new broom to sweep clean Huse& Senate so maybe some work can get done ...too many secrets lies and you scratch my ass and l will cover yours going on!

Comment by Buck Crosby on September 30, 2012 at 4:32pm

      Why hasn't George Soros been charged and indicted for war crimes from the times he admittedly worked for Adolpk Hitler retting out and directing hitlers troops to fellow jews for to feed his furnaces ?   Also Why has he not been charged and imprisoned for the number of countries he drove into financial collapse just to feed his personal greed ?  Why has he not been arrested for " buying " American elections to put his puppet Obamass in office , including but not limited to the lamestream media ?

Comment by Traci Mccormick on September 30, 2012 at 4:22pm

you are correct Anthony not all blacks so many blacks are way past color and have made up their mind oout of common sense!They know true history and refuse to be kept in poverty or"their place"! What blows my mind is how many Jewish people will still vote for him! lt's chilling

Comment by al pambuena on September 30, 2012 at 3:56pm

....2000...plus one ambassadore and 3 other americans, and a border patrol agent......


Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne


FBI Text Should Alarm Every American

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.


 Trump Poised To Take
 Control Of The Federal Reserve 

  • The Fed doesn’t stabilize markets and money — it does the opposite
  • President Trump sharply criticized the Federal Reserve this week, saying interest rate increases are hurting the economy.
  • Trump will have the opportunity to fashion the central bank in the image he would like as he has four vacancies to fill on the board of governors.
  • The result could be a more politicized Fed.

President Donald Trump has multiple reasons as to why he should take control of the Federal Reserve. He will do so both because he can and because his broader policies argue that he should do so. The president is anti-overregulating American industry. The Fed is a leader in pushing stringent regulation on the nation. By raising interest rates and stopping the growth in the money supply it stands in the way of further growth in the American economy.

First, He Can

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump.

The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Other than the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.

Second, Regulation

Following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act in July 2010, the Fed was given enormous power to regulate the banking industry. It moved quickly to implement a number of new rules. The Fed set up a system that would penalize banks that failed to obey its new rules. These rules included setting limits as to how big an individual bank could be; how much money the banks had to invest in fed funds and Treasurys as a percent of their assets; which loans were desirable and which were not; where the banks had to obtain their funding and many, many, more up to and including how much a bank could pay its investors in dividends.

These rules have meaningfully slowed bank investments in the economy (the Volcker Rule) and they have had a crippling effect on bank lending in the housing markets (other agencies have had an impact here also).

Thus, of all of the government agencies the Fed has been possibly the most restrictive. The president has already moved to correct these excesses by putting in place a new Fed Governor (Randal Quarles) to regulate the banking industry.

Three, Killing Economic Growth

In the second quarter of 2018, the growth in non-seasonally adjusted money supply (M2) has been zero. That’s right, the money supply did not grow at all. This is because the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet ultimately by $50 billion per month. In addition, the Fed has raised interest rates seven times since Q4 2015. Supposedly there are five more rate increases coming.

This is the tightest monetary policy since Paul Volcker headed the institution in the mid-1980s. It will be recalled his policies led to back-to-back recessions. Current Fed monetary policy is directly in conflict with the president’s economic goals.

Moreover, the Treasury is estimating it will pay $415 billion in interest on the federal debt in this fiscal year. A better estimate might be $450 billion if rates keep going up. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels and jobs that could be created with this money.

Then there is inflation. It is likely to rise if the Fed eases its policies. If that happens paying down the federal debt becomes easier. On a less desirable note, higher interest rates lower real estate values. Lower rates that stimulate inflation increase real estate values.

Bottom Line

The president can and will take control of the Fed. It may be recalled when the law was written creating the Federal Reserve the secretary of the Treasury was designated as the head of the Federal Reserve. We are going to return to that era. Like it or not the Fed is about to be politicized.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service