Searchlight Assault Investigation (analysis)

Apparently the Harry Reid hirelings who egged the Tea Party Express bus at Searchlight, Nevada last Saturday were members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 357 (CLICK THE LINK FOR MORE).

And perhaps I also owe an apology to SEIU because I bet a friend that the thugs were from the Service Employees International Union - Union-supplied heavies who traditionally act in this role on behalf of barack hussein obama and other members of the Democratic Party.

In the past we've seen ACORN or SEIU hirelings bussed to events, paid for their work at disruption and usually offered a sack lunch. This time nobody saw their bus, but there were only about a dozen of them protesting, throwing eggs, threatening violence (see video available on link above). It doesn't mean that they weren't bussed in on a charter - just that nobody there saw it.

Searchlight Nevada Police:  Ok, the only citizen of any means in the City of Searchlight, which is a collection of tumbledown mobile homes, trailers and shacks for the most part, is Senator Harry Reid. How much say would the Senator from the Great State of Nevada have in hiring the chief? (rhetorical question you can answer yourself) And you expect THEM to investigate an assault by IBEW THUGS?

This photo of people standing at the center of Searchlight, Nevada will note that the city offers a gas station, a McDonald's restaurant and an intersection. That's more or less it. Harry has a house there, it's true. It's his official residence. Any policeman who crosses Harry Reid in Harry's jerkwater town would find himself on the rolls of the unemployed - which would include the bulk of the residents of Searchlight. There is no way that they would conduct a fair and impartial investigation into IBEW thugs doing anything at the behest of their master in that city.

I feel sorry for the officers, by the way. I'm sure they're good and honest public servants placed into an impossible situation.

A Pattern of "Hope and Change"

Embrace America's enemies, spurn America's allies.

Socialist Rep Alan Grayson needs to leave Congress

I received an e-mail from Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL), who is currently pushing for a Super Public Option in ObamaCare.  The e-mail was incredibly offensive to my sense of Constitutional Republicanism (not to the Republican Party, but to the national precepts that are set down by the Constitution).

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is running for re-election in November 2010 and if it's possible to fathom, he seems to be left of Pelosi. He's an unabashed socialist, promotes expansion of nationalized healthcare beyond it's current abominable form and I urge patriots and constitutionalists to consider not only voting him from office, but funding his opposition.

He's one of the curs in Washington who needs to go back to his law firm and do whatever he does, but he does NOT belong in the legislature in my opinion. I have no idea where this creature, this embarrassment as a legislator came by my e-mail address, but I want to tell you that this guy is PRECISELY the WRONG PERSON to be representing Floridians and the WRONG PERSON to be representing America. Wikipedia  quotes his worth at over $31million.


He's a rich liberal crusader who has exempted himself from ObamaCare, but wants to shove it down your throat. Think about that if you consider voting for this clown.

Look at the picture above - the smug grin, the guy who could afford to mount his own Congressional campaign while only spending a portion of the interest he received on his money that year.  If you think this socialist is a man of the people who can relate to the people, ask him why he voted to EXEMPT CONGRESS from the absolute horror that ObamaCare will become.

(Nobody paid for this statement - it's simply my opinion. Think again, Grayson, before you send me e-mail promoting your national socialist agenda)

Contemporary Politicians

Are the voters going to throw the baby out with the bath water? In some cases, that will happen.

In most cases, if you are a barack hussein obama or Pelosi/Reid liberal, you might want to build bridges with your old law firm (since most politicians are lawyers). The mood of voters for the most part is unfavorable toward you and with good cause. American people like to think of themselves as fair minded and prefer honest victories to the sleazy backroom deals and rampant corruption of the barack hussein obama administration.  The Chicago way, SEIU thugs, ACORN style promotion of child prostitution and mafia-like behavior may play well to the obama advisors, since they're all Chicago machine politicians.

The rest of us don't see it that way.

And votes will tell in November whether or not having barack hussein obama show up to campaign for you is a good idea or a bad one.

Political Spectrum

People have asked me where I stand in the political spectrum. The answer is clear, I'm a Constitutionalist in that I believe that document and its strict interpretation should be the litmus test LIMITING government. Our founding fathers feared tyranny and the Constitution as amended, provides limits, which are ignored to an obscene extent by the present Congress and the national socialist stooge, barack hussein obama.

Back to spectrum: I think that Ted Nugent is slightly liberal for my tastes, however I will reference him here. This is from a talk he gave July 15, 2009 (nearly a year ago):

"With a liberal in the White House, it's sad to see the celebration of mediocrity and slovenliness and the cult of denial expand," he says. "That's heartbreaking to see this once-great nation abandon the drive of excellence and the new squawking mantra of whining and excuse-making, which is why we have the president we have, and for him and his administration to defy the Constitution and Fedzilla exploding into the private sector and controlling corporations, it's shocking."

Still, Nugent holds out hope for the country. "I believe that we the people will eventually see the criminality of the Obama administration and eventually stop them one way or another, so I have eternal faith in my fellow man," he says. "I can't believe this experiment in self-government is over. I can't believe the documents our founding fathers clearly articulated and wrote are going to be abandoned for tyranny and slavery, and that's really what Obama represents. He represents that 'you people are so stupid and inept, I'll have to cover you.' I just don't believe that's true."

However, Nugent also thinks that plenty of Americans are to blame as well. "There is gluttony and denial in our economy," he starts, his voice rising throughout. "Basically, it can be most simply understood by the U.S. government and its citizens being credit card pigs. You can't buy another leather jacket when you've already got six. You claim you can't make ends meet and you owe five grand, much less 250 grand, on your credit card, you chimp!? Of course, I'm the bastard for saying it. People are pigs from the blubber that they have intentionally infested ourselves with and then they have the audacity to squawk for health care but not care about our health? How does that work?! If the producers of 'Planet of the Apes' were offered the current American script that was playing out before us, they would turn it down because it's too stupid. It wouldn't qualify for a 'Planet of the Apes' script!

"Only the guilty need to feel guilty," he continues, "but anybody who claims they can't make ends meet is a liar! Anybody that owes money on their credit card is a pig. If you smoke or drink or have blubber, you get no healthcare until you show me you care about your health."

The Full Employment for Attorneys Act!

(h/t Mark S)
Heralding in a new era of full-employment for attorney's everywhere...
In the civil suit of...



The STATES OF FLORIDA, SOUTH CAROLINA, NEBRASKA, TEXAS, UTAH, LOUISIANA, ALABAMA,MICHIGAN,COLORADO,PENNSYLVANIA, WASHINGTON, IDAHO, SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiffs,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and HILDA L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor,
Defendants....

 To read the entire text, CLICK HERE

the above States are suing to enjoin enforcement of the "new universal healthcare regime, titled the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,' H.R. 3590 (the Act), was signed into law by the President. [The Act, which exceeds 2,400 pages, is available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f: h3590pp.txt.pdf ] as...

"an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals living in the Plaintiffs’ respective states, by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty." 

The States allege the following objections;

1. "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution."....
2. "the tax penalty required under the Act, which must be paid by uninsured citizens and residents, constitutes an unlawful capitation or direct tax, in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States."....
3. "represents an unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states. For example, it requires that Florida vastly broaden its Medicaid eligibility standards to accommodate upwards of 50 percent more enrollees, many of whom must enroll or face a tax penalty under the Act, and imposes onerous new operating rules that Florida must follow. The Act requires Florida to spend billions of additional dollars, and shifts substantial administrative costs to Florida for, inter alia, hiring and training new employees, as well as requiring that new and existing employees devote a considerable portion of their time to implementing the Act."... [and paraphrasing hereafter] destroys Medicaid, which in Florida alone presently covers tens of millions of residents, can only be accomplished by their continued participation in Medicaid....
4. "Further, the Act converts what had been a voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program in which the discretion of the Plaintiffs and their sister states is removed, in derogation of the core constitutional principle of federalism upon which this Nation was founded. In so doing, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution." ....
For example, no Florida government entity or infrastructure exists to discharge sufficiently all of the responsibilities that will be necessary to implement the Act, to meet requirements related to increases in Medicaid enrollment under the Act, and to operate healthcare insurance exchanges required by the Act."....
5. "By making federal funds potentially available at the discretion of federal agencies, the Act acknowledges the immediate burden on Plaintiffs to invest and implement the Act, but provides no guarantee that they will receive such funds or that the Act’s implementation costs will be met...."

Wherefore, the named States seek "declaratory and injunctive relief against the Act’s operation to preserve their respective sovereignty and solvency, and to protect the individual freedom, public health, and welfare of their citizens and residents."
The civil Complaint then goes on to list specifics as to the plaintiff's position that the "Act exceeds Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause, Const. art. I, §8; the Taxing and Spending Clause, id.; or any other provision of the Constitution,.... in violation of Article I of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution,..[why] [S]aid tax penalty violates article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States,... [and are]...in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States.

Now who said lawyers weren't good for anything? 

[I wonder how many DOJ attorneys Eric Holder is going to put on this case to defend the new law?? You'd better believe there will be plenty....]

Remember when someone asked the question of Nancy Pelosi about the constitutionality of the Act, and she replied,“Are you serious? Are you serious?”  [and her spokesperson later stated uncatagoically "You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”]


Well, guess what, MADAM Speaker. IT IS a serious question being asked by serious states attorneys. So I guess we'll get an answer now, one way or the other. Unfortunately, it is possible that the courts will duck the constitutional questions and decline to decide the case by applying the U.S. Supreme Court's "political question doctrine"; CLICK HERE

California is missing from the list of plaintiffs! When I saw that, I felt short changed. Maybe I need to move to a state that supports the Constitution of the United States (California is far too progressive to support or defend that old rag).

Oh, don't fret. The People's Republik of Kalifornia's Attorney General-cum-Gov'nor Jerry Brown will be the first in line to file an amicus curia petition in favor of the federal government's 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

Born Again America? Hope in the Post Obama Era?

Born Again American from Born Again American on Vimeo.


I'm not a "birther", I'm simply posting the sign on the blog and you can make up your mind whether the Kenyan claim to Barack Hussein Obama is legitimate or not...

However as to the Post Obama era, I hope we can be a better, more Constitutionally driven, more prosperous and simply a better people. When we forget what made the nation great, it's easy to fall back to vast mistakes we have made - like electing Barack Hussein Obama to be President.

Congress is Corrupt

I think we need a massive overhaul in the composition of the United States Congress and "We, the People" need to take back the legislative process in this country through our power to vote.

Democrats plan on passing their massive health bill without voting through the use of a parliamentary trick known as the "self-executing rule". Since Congress is unable to obtain votes to pass their $2,000,000,000,000.00 healthcare monstrosity, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have figured out a way to pass it without a vote.

The "self-executing rule" has been "used to adopt concurrent resolutions correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation," according to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. It's "a two-for-one procedure," as the CRS describes it, because the House of Representatives always must pass a rule, written by the House Rules Committee (where Democrats currently hold a 9-to-4 majority), setting the terms of debate on a particular piece of legislation. In this case, it's been rigged so that if the rule passes, the legislation passes too.

Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, is among a number of legal scholars who believe this Slaughter Solution, named after House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., "would stand a very good chance of being tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court."

In the 1998 Clinton v. City of New York ruling on the line-item veto, liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a 6-to-3 majority, "laid a likely road map for how the court might rule on a challenge to the constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution," according to Ridenour.

Stevens made note of "three procedural steps" that must be taken before a bill becomes law: The "exact text" must be "approved by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives"; the Senate must approve "precisely the same text"; and the same text must be "signed into law by the president. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may become a law."

Why do ANY Americans favor ObamaCare? It's a larger question that deserves attention.

A record number of the 142 million tax returns filed in 2008 resulted in no taxes owed, according to the Tax Foundation's analysis of the latest IRS data. About 51.6 million returns, or 36.3%, were filed by those whose deductions, exemptions and tax credits wiped out any federal income-tax obligation.

These aren't people who have overpaid their taxes or had so much withheld from their paychecks that they'll get refunds. Those people owe taxes and merely provided the government with a zero interest loan until accounts are settled. These are people who pay no taxes at all.

There's been a 59% increase in the number of nonpayers since 2000, growing from 32.6 million in 2000 to 51.6 million in 2008. In the same period, the total tax filers grew by only 10%.

So for those of you who don't pay taxes, getting "free healthcare" on the backs of those who do pay taxes must seem like a good deal. I get it. Nearly 40% of all Americans don't pay taxes.

According to the Tax Foundation, "The major elements of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 boosted the maximum income for nonpayers to more than $56,700" — the highest ever.

Maybe it's time to consider a flat tax, no deductions, no exemptions, a reduction of the impossibly complex tax code to a very simple formula where everyone pays a flat percentage of personal income. If that was the case and you had the choice of paying a flat 60% of your income with ObamaCare and National Socialism or 15% of your income without it, which option would sound better to you? National Socialism or the Constitutional System this country has been founded on?

Oh, and Happy St. Patrick's Day  

Bringing Sanity to Healthcare Legislation

No sane and thinking person could vote for the ObamaCare Bill based on its merits in its present form. I have a bit of advice for Democrats if they want to pass something that would be Constitutional, beneficial and popular.

1. Portability

2. Deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions.

3. Tort Reform

4. Open the market to all companies in all states.

The last two will lower the costs to all Americans. The first two address fairness issues. It shouldn't take more than about 50 or 60 pages, keep it understandable, simple and don't plug in any sacred cows or special interests. 

*It wouldn't raise taxes or damage the budget. 

*It would benefit almost ALL Americans.

*It would benefit the medical profession.

Which is precisely WHY it's not being seriously considered in Washington DC. The Democratic Bill is about power, not about healthcare. It's about the Democratic interest in controlling 20% of the US Economy under Federal control. It's about compelling all healthcare workers to join unions (note: Card Check)

Once legislators start to seriously consider the needs of the people, they can pass a healthcare bill. And All Americans will benefit from it.

ObamaCare = Democratic Party Self-Destruction

Good Bye Democratic Majority. Barack Hussein Obama is leading the Democrats off a cliff and the Democratic lemmings are running, panting after their Dear Leader.

(h/t IBD) for this analysis:

1. The people don't want it! This, we would think, should have some bearing on decision-making. Yet the Democrats forge ahead without consent of the governed. In the latest Rasmussen poll, 53% opposed the Democrats' reform while 42% were in favor. More than four in 10 "strongly" opposed; just two in 10 "strongly" favored. This jibes with other surveys, including our own IBD/TIPP Poll, taken since last year.

2. Doctors don't want it! A survey we took last summer of 1,376 practicing physicians found that 45% would consider leaving their practices or taking early retirements if the Democrats' reform became law. In December, the results were validated by a Medicus poll in which 25% of doctors said they'd retire early if a public option is implemented and another 21% would stop practicing even though they were far from their retirement years. Even if the bill doesn't have a "public option," nearly 30% said they'd quit the profession under the plans being considered.

3. Half the Congress doesn't want it! Not a single Republican backed the health care bill that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve 60-39. House passage was by a slim 220 to 215, and the lone Republican "aye" has since switched to "no." Columnist Michael Barone says other changes would put the House vote today at 216-215 in favor, and he has doubts Democrats can even muster 216.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her job of securing yes votes even more difficult last week when she told a meeting of county officials that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." (emphasis added) Members of Congress aren't waiting: They've already exempted themselves from whatever they inflict on us.

4. People are happy with the health care they've got! Polls show that 84% of Americans have health insurance and that few are displeased with what they've got. Last month, the St. Petersburg Times looked at eight polls and reported that satisfaction rates averaged 87%.

Obama Attacks the Supreme Court (response)

(h/t IBD) Waiting until asked, Chief Justice John Roberts finally expressed outrage at the intimidation of the Supreme Court during January's State of the Union. "Bully pulpit" has a new meaning.

On Aug. 27, 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention discussed possible friction between the judicial branch and the other two. James Wilson of Pennsylvania worried that "judges would be in a bad situation if made to depend on every gust of faction which might prevail in the two branches of our government."

Edmund Randolph of Virginia opposed a motion from John Dickinson of Delaware regarding the removal of federal judges for fear of "weakening too much the independence of the judges." Dickinson countered that he "was not apprehensive" that the other branches "constructed on such different principles, would improperly unite for the purpose of displacing a judge."

Lucky for those revered constitutional delegates they were dead 222 years when a president of the United States, a Senate and a House of Representatives did indeed "improperly unite for the purpose of displacing" Supreme Court justices. They physically united on the evening of Jan. 27, 2010, and literally roared down the necks of the impassively seated jurists.

Even the arguably furthest-to-the-left and newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was visibly uncomfortable as President [Barack Hussein] Obama declared, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

Had a George W. Bush or a Ronald Reagan so disparaged the justices present, the establishment media would have spent weeks ripping him apart. But since it came from a chief executive with a big government agenda, they instead took issue with Bush-appointed Justice Samuel Alito's whisper — "not true."

So no wonder Chief Justice Roberts, also a Bush appointee, speaking in Tuscaloosa on Tuesday, answered a University of Alabama law student's question about criticism of the court as follows:

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up — literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering — while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think, is very troubling."

Making it more troubling is the fact that what the president said was untrue. Far from scrapping "a century of law," the court was protecting the freedom of political speech enshrined over two centuries ago in the First Amendment.

Still more troubling: the hundreds of liberal politicians becoming a mob, including some, like Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., just an arm's length from the justices, growling their glee straight into the justices' ears.

Most troubling of all, however, is that the stunt was designed to prepare for the next Supreme Court nomination. This president and the Democratic Congress want the public to join them in ganging up on the high court — because its majority so often refuses to place their big-spending agenda before the Constitution.

Rahm Emanuel - Sexual Assault?

It sounds like some sort of sexual assault to me.
LINK
John Kass, Chicago Tribune reports the following (please follow the link to the whole story)

A naked, wet and angry Rahm Emanuel?

That's the last image Americans need in our minds right now.

But it's been seared onto our brains — just like that weird wrestling scene from the movie "Borat" — thanks to former U.S. Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., who resigned the other day amid allegations he sexually harassed male staffers.

"Let me tell you a story about Rahm Emanuel," Massa said on a recent radio program, talking about taking a shower in the Congressional Gym.

"I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget. Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?"

I think that somebody should launch an ethics investigation into this incident. Were there witnesses who won't be intimidated by the White House or the SEIU thugs who might have also been in the locker room at the time and can testify as to the events as shared by Congressman Massa? Does anyone doubt that Rahm Emanuel is beneath doing something like this?  Is this what the Democratic Party has come to? Democrats - are you actually PROUD of this sort of man working as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States?

Chicago Thugs Attack Massa

To put things in perspective, I'm no fan of Congressman Massa. However, the ethics committee of the US House of Representatives is "leaking" the pending investigation of Massa prior to ANY actual investigation because Massa planned to vote NO on ObamaCare. It's come to that. The Democrats are eating their own if they don't follow the Party Line.

Let's bring the issue into focus. The House Leadership is rallying around Congressman Rangle, one of the most corrupt members of the Congress in recent memories, blanketed with SUBSTANTIATED accusations of felonious misconduct.  In the case of Massa, the Chicago Thugs, and by that, I mean the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama, show their hand and Massa is not standing up to them and forcing them to prove the allegation.

And it's all about a NO vote on Obamacare. If Massa had changed his vote to YES, I suspect that the allegation would have been found to be unsubstantiated and it would have all vanished.

Is this the sort of Presidency of "Hope and Change" that America asked for when they elected Barack Hussein Obama?

Obama Wins the Oscar!

Yes there are those among you who feel that Barack Hussein Obama doesn't deserve all of the awards he's winning. You're a bunch of CYNICS! I know that he didn't really do anything to win his Nobel Peace Prize, but conservatives don't understand that he won the award for what he clearly told everyone that he intended to do (bring peace to the planet), not for what he did in his first ten or fifteen days in office.

Last night Barack Hussein Obama won the Academy Award for Best Actor and nobody should feel inclined to take it away from him. He's clearly the best actor on television today. Put a teleprompter in front of him and -- well it's just magic. Watch him campaign for a political office he's already won. Yes Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are miffed that they didn't get best supporting actor - but they are not THE ONE, are they?

Obama will win the Pulitzer Prize this coming year for his upcoming book, Dreams from My Future. Best guess, the award will arrive before the book hits the press so it can appear on the cover. In the book, Barack Hussein Obama's Legions march forward to great glory and everyone in Amerika attends the Black Liberation Theology Church and loves Big Brother.

And who can forget Barack Hussein Obama winning the Cy Young Award for both the American and National Leagues this last year. It was the first and may not be the last time a man who throws a baseball like a little girl wins the award in leagues he never participated in. There are four more years in his term of office and it would be appropriate to present the award to him in advance for the next three years. (he has a busy schedule and making time to receive the award is always a problem)

Sandy Koufax was the first pitcher to win a unanimous vote and then to win it a second time two years later -- however Barack Hussein Obama will win the award by unanimous vote four years running without pitching an inning, thereby eclipsing Koufax's record.


###

How Big should Government be?

There is a Constitutional Amendment that is being discussed, referred to as the Hensarling-Pence-Campbell Spending Limit Amendment. What these three Congressional representatives propose is that government spending be limited to 20% of the economy. We are currently spending somewhere over 24% of the economy on government services. Once in place, either a declared war or a 2/3 majority of Congress would be necessary to spend over the 20% cap.
  




I believe that this is a good criteria to determine whether somebody you may wish to vote for is worth voting for. DO THEY SUPPORT this Constitutional Amendment? Unfortunately I believe that it will take a Constitutional Amendment to curb the spending insanity in Washington.

The Constitution is not easy to amend - it's not supposed to be. However, THIS particular amendment might have traction with both the states and the voters because it would stop the ongoing Congressional spending habit. There would be no more votes to extend the debt ceiling. The ceiling would be set.

Want another entitlement to buy votes? Sorry.

Think about this long and hard and whether or not support for this measure would be a valid litmus test for a candidate.

Is Assassination Justified?

Is planned political assassination a rational and desirable course for a nation to chart? That is the question. One of the answers from a practical point of view is that it's desirable IF you don't get caught murdering somebody for political purposes (for the benefit of the state sponsoring the assassination). If you are caught or are suspected based on some evidentiary circumstances, is it worth the risk to the sponsor nation? 

Does it come down to cost-benefit analysis?

Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) is going to trial in New York City per the Obama Administration and Holder Justice Department at some point of time in the future. If the US had known about his planning efforts toward the attack on September 11, 2001, would preemption by way of state sponsored assassination of KSM have been justified? Would it have been worth it to have removed Osama Bin Laden (OBL) in the same method?  

I'm speaking of reading the tea leaves effectively and being able to proactively deal with a serious problem. There are some who argue that the United States should have assassinated Saddam Hussein rather than invading Iraq. The argument there was that nobody knew if the person who took his place would have been better or worse. We could have kept eliminating until we found somebody who wasn't as "bad" but that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most people.

Assassinations that keep us out of a war (and vast loss of life and national treasure) on balance seem to be justified. By the same measure, assassinating Adolph Hitler in 1937 would have left the world much better off. 

There is a high cost associated with planned political assassination. I'm not speaking of the actual operation and the expense of vetting intelligence and engaging in operational planning, direct action and escape/evasion following the killing. The POLITICAL cost of engaging in assassination as a matter of state sanctioned activity tends to make you a pariah. The Soviets and more recently the Russians found that out, even though they tend to be a pariah nation anyway -- so you can argue successfully that it doesn't cost them as much as it would the Americans, British, Japanese or any other nation which takes the moral high ground to its citizens and to the international community.

Which brings us inevitably to Israel, which has participated in state-sponsored assassination since before it was founded in 1947 with the Partition of Palestine. The Irgun (Irgun Tsvai-Leumi) and Stern Gang historically and the MOSSAD in more recent times acted as the tip of the spear for Israeli assassinations. One difference between Israel and other nations is that the MOSSAD usually wants their enemies to know (Hamas as a recent example) who pulled the trigger. MOSSAD also has a habit of planning and green-lighting the target themselves without prime ministerial approval - the PM could loose heart and change his/her mind even after the order is granted... Israel is not out to win popularity contests, and much like the Russians, they look for success first. Israel has a better position in the West than the Russians do and a lot of what they have done has been 'overlooked' up to and including situations such as the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.

Arab nation-states such as the PLO have engaged in both targeted and many random planned political murders (blowing up school busses as well as targeted killings such as the assassination of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Bob Baer (author and former intelligence official) comments on the January 20, 2010 assassination of Hamas shot caller Mahmoud al-Mabhouh:

Nearly the entire hit was recorded on closed-circuit TV cameras, from the time the team arrived at Dubai's airport to the time the assassins entered Mr. Mabhouh's room. The cameras even caught team members before and after they donned their disguises. The only thing the Dubai authorities have been unable to discover is the true names of the team. But having identified the assassins, or at least the borrowed identities they traveled on, Dubai felt confident enough to point a finger at Israel. (Oddly enough several of the identities were stolen from people living in Israel.)

Dubai had on its side motivation—Mr. Mabhouh had plotted the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers and reportedly played a role in the smuggling of Iranian arms into Gaza. And none of this is to mention that the Mabhouh assassination had all the hallmarks of an Israeli hit: a large team, composed of men and women, and an almost flawless execution. If it had been a Russian hit, for instance, they would have used a pistol or a car bomb, indifferent to the chaos left behind.

After Dubai released the tapes, the narrative quickly became that the assassination was an embarrassing blunder for Tel Aviv. Mossad failed spectacularly to assassinate a Hamas official in Amman in 1997— the poison that was used acted too slowly and the man survived—and it looks like the agency is not much better today. Why were so many people involved? (The latest report is that there were 26 members of the team.) Why were identities stolen from people living in Israel? Why didn't they just kill Mr. Mabhouh in a dark alley, one assassin with a pistol with a silencer? Or why at least didn't they all cover their faces with baseball caps so that the closed-circuit TV cameras did not have a clean view?

The truth is that Mr. Mabhouh's assassination was conducted according to the book—a military operation in which the environment is completely controlled by the assassins. At least 25 people are needed to carry off something like this. You need "eyes on" the target 24 hours a day to ensure that when the time comes he is alone. You need coverage of the police—assassinations go very wrong when the police stumble into the middle of one. You need coverage of the hotel security staff, the maids, the outside of the hotel. You even need people in back-up accommodations in the event the team needs a place to hide.

I can only speculate about where exactly the hit went wrong. But I would guess the assassins failed to account for the marked advance in technology. Not only were there closed-circuit TV cameras in the hotel where Mr. Mabhouh was assassinated and at the airport, but Dubai has at its fingertips the best security consultants in the world. The consultants merely had to run advanced software through all of Dubai's digital data before, during and after the assassination to connect the assassins in time and place. For instance, a search of all cellular phone calls made in and around the hotel where Mr. Mabhouh was assassinated would show who had called the same number—reportedly a command post in Vienna. It would only be a matter then of tracking when and where calls were made from these phones, tying them to hotels where the team was operating or staying.

Not completely understanding advances in technology may be one explanation for the assassins nonchalantly exposing their faces to the closed-circuit TV cameras, one female assassin even smiling at one. They mistook Dubai 2010 for Paris 1992, and never thought it would all be tied together in a neat bow. But there is no good explanation why Israel, if indeed it was behind the assassination, underestimated the technology. The other explanation—the assassins didn't care whether their faces were identified—doesn't seem plausible at all.

Today (post 9/11), the US targets people in areas where it is engaged in conflict with unmanned arial vehicles and eliminates them through the use of Hellfire Missiles. Sometimes people standing nearby die too and occasionally they hit the wrong target (file under: You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs). Do we want to call that planned political assassination or war fighting - I leave it to you, the blog reader to sort it out.

I personally shed no tears for the spilt Jihadi blood - but I do understand that all this racks up a cost that the United States and its citizens often don't grasp fully.

Is planned political assassination justified?

Obama HATES the British

Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put the final nail in the coffin of US-British relations? 

 -- More of that later.

It's difficult to fathom that Barack Hussein Obama could offend our British friends and allies more than he has. So far he has not urinated on the Union Jack (in public) but he's done just about everything else. Before I move on to the latest political insult in the Falkland Islands, let's review what he's done to Alienate Great Britain over his last year in office.

Barack Hussein Obama has effectively erased the "special relationship" enjoyed between the US and Great Britain. In Washington, they're treated callously where over the past hundred years, they enjoyed a special place in American political thinking. When the Prime Minister met with Barack Hussein Obama a year ago, Obama said, "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

Barack Hussein Obama has relentlessly supported the Treaty of Lisbon and other measures which would eliminate national sovereignty for European nations. The British feel their sovereignty is not a negotiable item. Obama says that it is.

Barack Hussein Obama and his administration has refused to recognize the contribution that the British made in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's CLEARLY an insulting signal sent to the British who were the ONLY allies to send significant numbers of troops to support our efforts.

The British people loaned the US a bust of Winston Churchill in the aftermath of 9/11 as a token of solidarity and support. Barack Hussein Obama had it shipped back without telling the British Government it was coming. It's simply one in a long list of insults.

I won't go into the embarrassing DVD Collection matter presented by Barack Hussein Obama and his shrewish spouse slapping the Queen of England on the back, Barack Hussein Obama dodging the Prime Minister in New York last September or Robert Gibbs' attack on the British Press. Let's move on to the Falklands.

Argentina was celebrated a diplomatic coup yesterday in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.

Her intervention defied Britain’s longstanding position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands’ 3,000 inhabitants asked for them. It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands.

In the Falklands, reaction to the meeting ranged from dismay to fury. “It’s outrageous after all the support we have given the United States,” said Hattie Kilmartin, a sheepfarmer’s wife. “They are not looking at the people who are actually living here and what they want, and it’s crazy that they are even contemplating going against us.” (Times On Line)

The Obama "smart diplomacy" juggernaut forges full-speed ahead!

One wonders: does the Obama administration deliberately try to screw up our foreign policy, or is it just a matter of ignorance and incompetence? This is painful reading: "Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over Falklands." ...So much for the idea that foreign relations would be conducted better by women. Maybe a "wise Latina" would do better? Oh, wait...she's busy doing a supreme social justice gig.

It is simply beyond my comprehension why, in the name of "diversity" and social egalitarianism, we as a society have come to the point where we think this kind of tawdry identity politics should trump competence. In Obama's case, by shrewdly manipulating his race and gift for empty rhetoric, he was elected President of the United States.

It's hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for or has accomplished; instead, these days most people respond to the looks of a candidate; or the carefully constructing image; or the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy. Voters appear to be primarily influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character or the scope of his or her experience.

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians like Hillary and her famous husband; as well as the deeply flawed Obamessiah, can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them. These are not the kind of people who can face real threats in the real world very effectively because they are not the kind of people who can effectively deal with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should? 

The Mainstream Media/State-Controlled Media backs their play at all levels. Political bullies feel perfectly safe in viciously attacking and denigrating those who oppose them. And, you can see that Obama has no compunction about bullying and denigrating his opponents and making them into scapegoats for his own failures and incompetence. And, when it happens occasionally that a political adversary unexpectedly shoots back and won't go away, the bully easily falls back on the "victim" role and whines about "vast right-wing conspiracies" blames others, or sheds a few tears on cue and such.

To our steadfast British allies, all I can do is offer apologies for what America has become.

###

Al Qaeda Seven

Barack Hussein Obama, suspected by many of being a closet Muslim, suspected by some to have declared his religious affiliation to Islam in documents affiliated with his collegiate registration (one more reason to keep them sealed), now is revealed to have nine attorneys who have represented Al Qaeda terrorists on the payroll at the United States Department of Justice. Are they the ones who will be prosecuting the terrorists facing trial in New York City? We just don't know.

h/t Hot Air Pundit

Why does Attorney General Eric Holder REFUSE to disclose who those people are to the American public? Do you think the public has a right to know? I suspect the wives/husbands of the dead soldiers slain at Ft. Hood at the hands of Jihadi Nidal Hasan would have liked to have known a bit more about him before he went on a killing spree.

I'm not saying that the US Justice Department's Al Qaeda Seven are going to take up arms and kill their co-workers at Main Justice. But it would be interesting to see how they have worked their way into the Justice infrastructure since their appointment.

Do the Al Qaeda Seven share the values of Barack Hussein Obama?  I'm sure they do.

WHITE POWDER (Novel): Available on Kindle!

Just a note to let you all know that the breakthrough novel, WHITE POWDER: A Novel of the CIA and the Secret War in Laos - is now available on Kindle HERE on amazon.com.

There were some people who wrote, concerned that they couldn't download it instantly onto their Kindle Book Readers. That problem has been resolved and it's there if you want it.

There is something intoxicating about a secret. There is something forbidding and dangerous about a war nobody knows is taking place - because it's a secret war. There is a place where narcotics empires and governments meet.

Enter the world of WHITE POWDER!

Al Gore - Still Beating a Dead Horse

The image is of a rider, intent on arriving at a place, but he's ridden his horse to death. Still he sits astride the dead animal, whipping its flanks.  THINK AL (Inconvenient Truth) GORE.

Climate skeptics, citing recent snowfall in parts of the East Coast, have mocked Gore. Tycoon Donald Trump says Gore should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize for warning about climate change. "It's going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries "uncle,"" Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., wrote on Twitter.

Nobody knows where gore picked up his recent data, but he took the pulpit once again. Now, Gore says, "Global data show last month was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago and the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept."

I think the Motion Picture Academy needs to strip him of his Oscar (in addition to the Peace Prize, which was also won by Barack Hussein Obama, who, by coincidence, did every bit as little as Gore did).

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who's been working with Democrats to craft a compromise, says the current so-called "cap and trade" bill won't pass. In an op-ed piece Sunday by The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, Graham is quoted as saying that Republicans need to support some kind of climate bill even if they don't believe in global warming.

Really, Sen. Graham. Why don't you think Cap and Trade will pass? Maybe because it's based on a completely FALSE premise and now Americans understand that it will further gut their already fragile economy?

I agree that the US needs to decrease or eliminate it's dependence on foreign oil. The best way to begin to do that is to transition to Nuclear power to fill our electricity needs nationally. It's environmentally green, it's proven safe and it's even renewable to some extent. Secondly we need to open oil rich areas such as the California Coast and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration and drilling. The Barack Hussein Obama administration opposes these measures. Why would that be?

The Gore/Graham axis is a philosophy of fools based on PATENTLY FRAUDULENT information. The blush is off the rose, gentlemen. Time to acknowledge that the data has been gaffed to the point that NOBODY knows what the truth is -- but it doesn't seem to favor Nobel Prize winning Al Gore.

Time for Gore to retire to his energy hungry home in Tennessee. Per SNOPES, Gore's home uses 20 times more energy than the national average. I don't think Al wants you to know that. Maybe it could be considered an "inconvenient truth".