Monthly Archives: September 2013

Politics, War On Terror

Unbelievably Small, Hillary Clinton

It’s been one year since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began lying about the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, where our Ambassador and three other Americans fought to their death. And since that time, Mrs. Clinton has still not put her hand on the bible to talk about it.

Hillary-Clinton-benghazi_hearing

No one has been ‘brought to justice’ for it. It’s like it never happened. Try to convince the families of the victims that it never happened. Try to give the American people amnesia so they will forget that it happened. Because Hillary said, at this point, what difference does it make?

Run for president Hillary, and you’ll find out.

hillary_clinton_3

unbelievably_small_john_kerryIn another unbelievably small action from another unbelievably small politician, is Hillary’s successor. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), must have Syria’s Assad shaking in his boots. As further evidence that the U.S. military does not deserved to be commanded by Democrats of today, Secretary of State Kerry said that a military attack on Syria would be unbelievably small. What?

Here’s the military strategy as executed by Democrats. Never make the case that America’s national security (as opposed to America’s interest) is at stake. Then, publicize that an attack is coming weeks if not months ahead of time. Then, publish the intended targets in the newspaper. Give several weeks, if not months, for the enemy to move their munitions. Then, tell them, hey, it’s no big deal. We’re barely going to hurt you. Unbelievably small!  Then, after it is clear the president has no public support, use Congress as someone to blame, or to save his butt. Accept no responsibility yourself.

Yeah, that’s who I’ll entrust the life of my son or daughter to. As a soldier, I’d feel even less confident.

Organized Labor, Politics

Labor Union Intimidation

Union intimidation comes in all forms. Here’s one example. Don’t be intimidated. The National Right to Work Legal Foundation is here to help.

endofstory

nrtw_header2

Dear Ross ,

Pay up or get fired.

That’s the message United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 135 union bosses sent a teenage part-time Ralphs Grocery clerk in Oceanside, California.

And now with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the teenager is fighting back.

These facts may sound familiar to longtime Right to Work supporters.

That’s because just six years ago, with free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, another California teenager who took a part-time job at a grocery store to help save money for college fought back against similar threats made by the very same union — with the same union president.

After Danielle Cookson’s story made the local news in 2007, union bosses backed off from some of their improper demands but persisted in trying to force her to pay more than can be legally required under the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court case.

I can’t say I’m surprised they’re at it again.

It started in July when UFCW union bosses sent the Ralphs clerk a membership packet illegally stating that new hires must join the union and pay full dues as a condition of employment.

They buried information about the right to refrain from full dues-paying membership in fine print and failed to follow the Beck disclosure requirements.When the clerk learned of his rights on his own, union bosses denied or even ignored his multiple requests to resign from union membership.

Finally, last month union officials threatened to have him fired and claimed he could only resign from the union by personally appearing at the union headquarters and providing union bosses with his social security number.

If you and I aren’t vigilant standing up for independent-minded workers, union bosses would bend, twist, and break the law even more than they already do.

And even if they get caught breaking the law once, union scofflaws might try it again or come up with a new scheme to violate workers’ rights.

That’s why I’m so grateful for you continued support helping the Foundation fight back against these schemes and expose them in the media.

Thank you for all you continue to do for worker freedom.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

P.S. The Foundation relies completely on voluntary contributions from its supporters to provide free legal aid.

Please chip in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more today to support the Foundation’s programs.

endofstory
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses.  The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation’s mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. Its web address is www.nrtw.org/.To help the National Right to Work Foundation grow; please forward this to a friend.

Media, Middle East, Politics, War On Terror

Community/Country Organizing Coming To TV

circusbarker
Meanwhile, you’re not thinking about the economy, amnesty, or Benghazi. That’s NOT an unintended consequence.

Just want to prepare you for the circus-like smoke and mirrors we will see Tuesday night as President Obama tries to convince you that you’re all wrong on Syria and should back him for bombing.

We’ll see pictures of men, women, and children dying from nerve gas. We’ll hear him say how the world condemned the use of WMD’s long ago. The president will reiterate the lie that it wasn’t his ‘red line,’ it was the world’s red line. He will use the guilt-trip on you for not feeling compelled to wage war on Syria, in support of his flippant remark about a red line last year.

You won’t hear him say how other countries have committed to use their military to attack Syria. Because no other country has. Not Russia or China, not one Arab country, no European country. France supports using our military, not theirs. No North or South American country. No Asian country. No country in the South Pacific.

The Constitution authorizes the president to use the military as needed when national security (not national interest) is under imminent threat. He will not make the case that our national security is directly or indirectly threatened. Instead, his emphasis will be ‘America’s interest’ which, fails the constitutional test for use of military force.

The president won’t tell you that telegraphing targets weeks ahead of time didn’t cause the Assad regime to move their WMD stockpiles somewhere else. And he won’t tell you that his intelligence sources are the Muslim Brotherhood. He will tell us ‘there will be no boots on the ground.’ He won’t tell you that he won’t send in troops to keep WMD’s from getting into the hands of alQaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood after the bombing stops. And of course, he won’t tell you that the only ones to gain by us bombing Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood and alQaeda.

In the end, President Obama will try to shame you into inserting the United States in Syria’s civil war. You only need to remember two things. There is no constitutional authorization for it. And, our sons and daughters in the military don’t wear the uniform to die for flippant remarks made by their Commander-in-Chief.

Politics, War On Terror

A Year After Benghazi, US orders diplomats out of Lebanon

anti-war_protesters-at_us_embassy-lebanonThe State Department ordered all nonessential U.S. personnel Friday to leave Lebanon, and suggest U.S. citizens do the same.

barack_hidingSo when can we know who was responsible for what happened, and what didn’t happen, in Benghazi nearly a year ago? If there’s nothing to hide, why are witnesses, from Secretary Clinton on down, still prevented from talking?

Link: BEIRUT: US orders diplomats out of Lebanon amid fears – World Wires – MiamiHerald.com.

Gun Control, Media, Politics

The Administration’s Firewalls

No doubt, from the perspective of a community organizer, surrounding yourself with like-minded people is imperative when reaching goals are paramount to b-todd-jonesenforcing law. Yesterday, it was the new and unqualified Director of  ICE John Sandweg. Today, it’s B. Todd Jones, the new Director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

Before taking over for Melson in a DOJ push to appear to have done “something,” Jones was the chairman of the attorney general’s Advisory Committee. He sat in on Fast and Furious calls as early as October 26, 2009 — a meeting Melson also attended. 

As a potential co-conspirator in Attorney General Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious gun-running program, Mr. Jones has a vested interest in keeping 90,000 documents on the Fast and Furious plot hidden from congressional investigators.

See, it’s not about following the law, or transparency. And there won’t be any ‘smoking gun’ documents that point to a coverup. That is inbred by the appointments themselves.

Link: What the Mainstream Media DIDN’T Tell You about Obama’s New BATFE Director

Immigration, Politics

New ICE Director Sandweg, Least Qualified

John Sandweg quietly assumed the job as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest agency within Homeland Security. Like his johnSandwegpredecessor, Janet (Big Sis) Napolitano, Sansweg is but another political operative. Not a law enforcement officer. And like his predecessor, doesn’t have to be told to do whatever possible to help illegal immigration, when the job should be about stopping it.

Sandweg has zero experience in law enforcement . . . unless you count his “experience” defending murderers, child molesters, wife beaters, and drunk drivers as a criminal defense attorney in Arizona, from where the Lesbionic woman, Napolitano, scooped him up from the state’s Democrat hacktivists.

Link: Debbie Schlussel.

Middle East, Politics, Venezuela, War On Terror

“In America’s Interest” Is Not Enough

2 Comments

Listening to “the case” that the president and the ‘bomb Syria’ crowd is making is an answer to the wrong question. The only question to ask when it comes to using military force on another country is this, are we under direct threat of attack or under attack? Is our national security being compromised or about to be compromised? That’s all our constitution calls for when it comes to a standing military as commanded by the president.

Listening to my favorite financial guy Stewart Varney say how it is in America’s interest to strike Syria almost made me physically ill. Citing the death and destruction going on there. Citing that because we have the power to intervene, then we should.

Not picking on Varney, he has a lot of company in this kind of thinking. Where does this thinking come from? It comes from the belief that we should be the policeman of the world. That we should interfere in another country’s civil war by waging war on them. Not only is life not that simple, but more importantly, someone else’s civil war does not constitute an immediate threat to our national security. Nor does it mean we have to step in and get involved. They need to fight their civil war to its conclusion. Just like, without foreign intervention, we fought our own civil war.

Would it be in America’s interest if the fighting would stop? Not necessarily. Especially if alQaeda were to be the ones filling the vacuum created by our military strike.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume it to be true that it would be in America’s interest for us to use military force in Syria. Let’s also assume that Iran and Syria would not attack Israel like they said they would. I can think of other situations where it would be in America’s interest to deal with problems in another country. Wouldn’t it be in America’s interest to put an end to the Mexican drug cartels that are invading our country and killing our citizens? Aided in many ways by the corrupt politicians in Mexico. The same politicians, their president included, that facilitate illegal immigration across our southern border. Let’s bomb them. Let’s send in some drones to wipe out the drug kingpin’s homes. Take out Mexico’s command and control. Because it’s in America’s interest. Then there’s Venezuela, hosting terrorist training camps. Nationalizing the oil industry, confiscating Exxon, an American company. Well, it’s in America’s interest to stop that. Bomb them.

See the difference between “national security” and “America’s interest?” When the U.S. uses its military for what is in America’s interest, instead of for protecting its national security, it’s not hard to see why the terrorists and the axis of evil refer to the U.S. as war mongering imperialists. To their lame brain followers, those kind of actions make a compelling case.

Further, the people who want to go to war for “America’s interest,” label those who only want to go to war for “national security” as “isolationists.” As opposed to what, war mongering imperialists?

Having a president that couldn’t take a stand and be responsible for anything is bad enough where our reputation around the world is concerned. When, merely adhering to our constitution, instead of our national ego, would so more to regain the respect in the world that the bomb Syria crowd says bombing Syria would get. It’s their answer to the wrong question.

Gun Control

Today Was ‘Take A Lib To The Range Day’

Had one of those rare moments when all the planets and moons were in alignment (to the right of course) and both my liberal buddy Derek and I were available to hit the range and do some shooting. I affectionately called it “Take a Lib to the Range Day.”

He had shot only once when he was a kid and I hadn’t been to the range in months. We both had a good time. Although we shot a few of my weapons, I only have some pics of Derek with my MAC-10. Was too busy shooting to take pics.

Iran, Middle East, Politics, War On Terror

No To Syria ‘Save Face’ / Ego War

1 Comment

You know what’s coming when the two French Republicans (as Mark Levin affectionately calls them), Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are summoned to The White House for a little back-scratching session. Ostensibly for President Obama to make his case for a military attack on Syria.Graham_McCain2

And what they came up with is no reason to use our military in Syria’s civil war.

A vote against strikes to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for alleged use of chemical weapons, officials argue, could undermine Obama’s standing in the Middle East as his administration seeks to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians and stabilize a region already in turmoil.

“A rejection of this resolution would be catastrophic, not just for him but for the institution of the presidency and the credibility of the United States,” Senator John McCain said after meeting with Obama at the White House on Monday.

I’m not seeing any direct threat to the security of the United States, the only reason to use the military in a foreign country. That is, if you take your oath of office seriously. Besides, it’s already too late to save our standing and credibility around the world. The proper response is to suck it up and deal with it. Learn your lesson the hard way. It’s what happens when an amateur and ideologue is also Commander-in-Cheif. Aside from there being no national security threat, by their own admission now, our military men and women don’t wear the uniform to die for flippant remarks made by their Commander-in-Chief.

The United States military is not to be used as a U.N. replacement, world policeman, or custodian for countries involved in a civil war. Like I’ve said many times before, it’s their civil war. And the only way it will end is if one side wins and the other side loses. Only then will we know what kind of State we’re dealing with.

McCain and Graham must have allowed themselves to either be hypnotized by Obama, or they are among those Republicans that reflexively cave under fear of the demagoguery to come if they buck the President. I’ll go with the latter. Demagoguery that is coming to the party no matter what they say.

It’s yet another example of caving for the sake of the party of being liked, and for appearing bi-partisan with the most partisan president in history. The Constitution be damned. A foolish behavior that never advances the interests of Republicans and, a lesson never learned.

Link: Analysis: Obama lobbies personally for Syria vote

[polldaddy poll=7366481]