They Said We Were Safer

The Huffington Post, just last week (Sept. 8, 2012), wrote the following glowing article about how Barack “George Patton” Obama has kept his flock safe from terror.

Lolita C. Blador of the Huff Post writes, “As Americans debate whether they are better off now than they were four years ago, there is a similar question with a somewhat easier answer: Are you safer now than you were when President Barack Obama took office? By most measures, the answer is yes.”

“…Americans have stopped fretting daily about a possible attack or stockpiling duct tape and water…”

“While the threat of a terrorist attack has not disappeared, the combined military, intelligence, diplomatic and financial efforts to hobble al-Qaida and its affiliates have escalated over the past four years and paid off. Terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are dead and their networks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia disrupted.”

“…Obama pursued a more aggressive drone campaign to target terrorist leaders, broadening efforts to help at-risk nations bolster their own defenses, and put in place plans to end the war in Iraq and bring troops out of Afghanistan.”

“As a result, terrorism worries have taken a back seat to the nation’s economic woes. Unlike previous elections, national security is not a big campaign issue this year.”

Phil Mudd, a senior research fellow at the nonpartisan New America Foundation said, “But I would say today that al-Qaidaism is on the decline. By any balance, the number of places where people want to come after us has declined in the past four years.”

James Lewis, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed, “through diplomatic efforts by the Obama administration that level of fear has been tamped down. The global perception of the U.S. is better.”

Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council stated, “The U.S. is absolutely safer now than four years ago.”

We were apparently so safe, the U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Yes!! You read that correctly. The Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

I’m sure she figured diplomacy would always be more effective than bullets.

As I’ve stated many times, diplomacy never has and never will work. Especially when dealing with an enemy that doesn’t mind dying, or at least encourages others to die for them. 

What makes this tragedy even worse is that it may have been prevented.

Sources have recently come forth, claiming the U.S. State Department knew of the potential for attacks up to 48 hours prior to 9-11.  They evidently did nothing about it. They took no precautions, no heightened security.

The threat was apparently not specific to any location.   Well, you say, if that’s the case, how could anyone be held responsible? Do you how many consulates and embassies we must have? How can one blame the Obama administration for such a vague threat?

Easy! Here’s how. The State Department receives notice of a threat on consulates and embassies. The threat is of  possible terrorist attacks corresponding to the 9-11 anniversary. The State Department alerts the The White House. The White House looks at the embassies around the globe. They then ask themselves where a terror threat is most eminent or more likely to occur. Then, by deductive reasoning, they eliminate all but those in suspected terror hotspots.

So the embassies in Barbados and Fiji are probably safe, where as the ones in, say Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Syria, etc. are more at risk.

The Commander-in-Chief would then bid David Letterman adieu, leave the campaign trail, rush back to the White House and send out orders to beef up security at those embassies deemed high risk. He might even order that they be issued ammunition.

I’m not saying that these attacks and subsequent deaths could have been prevented or even lessened. Yes I am. I’m saying exactly that. These poor souls were not even given a fighting chance. That’s the real tragedy here.

With this information of prior notification coming to light, might this be the reason the Administration and the cheer squad in the media keep harping on the dopey YouTube video as the sole cause of mayhem, when any reasonable person knows it had nothing to do with it? Of course it is!

If the mainstream media actually did their job and reported that the Obama State Department had prior notice and didn’t act, there would be hell to pay. If this happened during a Romney administration, you know they would shouting it from the tree tops.

Attribution: PJ Media, Huff Po, Daily Mail

You’ve Won A Bomb

They’re the bane of everyone’s life. But beware the fate of one Colorado man who encountered perhaps the world’s worst telemarketer – when he phoned and threatened to blow up his house.

The unnamed man got the menacing call on Thursday evening at his home in the city of Greeley, in Weld County.

At first the caller told him he had won some money, to which he responded that he wasn’t interested and hung up the phone.

 
Extreme reaction: After the man hung up the telemarketer phoned him back and threatened to blow up his house

He thought that would be the end of it but the salesman called back almost immediately, this time turning nasty.

‘I’ve placed a bomb in your house,’ he told the man through a thick accent, leading him to believe the call might be coming from abroad.

The man hung up once more and made a call of his own, to the police, telling the operator about the alarming threat.

Police arrived and evacuated surrounding houses while they searched the man’s home for signs of explosives, taking them to a nearby fire station and town hall.

Officers scoured the property but found nothing, determining that the call had been a hoax.

Sgt Tim Schwartz of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office said they are trying to track down the mystery caller, adding that the bizarre threat was ‘completely out of the ordinary’.

 
The man was at his home in Greeley, Colorado, when he got the call‘I don’t know how to explain it,’ he said. ‘They’re just pretty pushy I guess.’

As evacuated residents returned to their homes one, Elaine Stanchfield, told the Denver Channel: ‘It was like Oh my God! A bomb threat.’

She said people are sick of getting harassed by persistent phone calls but that she couldn’t believe what had happened.

‘I personally think that telemarketers are a big pain because they constantly call you even when you ask them not to,’ she said.

‘But to go to those lengths to actually threaten someone is just ridiculous.’
Deputies fear it may be next to impossible to track down the telemarketer but if they do they will issue an arrest warrant.

If it turns out the call came from outside the U.S the FBI will be alerted.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Britain and US ‘have no moral right to prevent Israel acting against Iran’

by:: , Jerusalem and David Blair of the UK Telegraph

The Israeli prime minister’s words followed a secret visit by an unnamed British official last month, who is understood to have delivered a warning from David Cameron against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Mr Netanyahu wants America to lay down clear “red lines” beyond which Iran would risk war by pressing on with its nuclear ambitions. He fears that Iran is successfully playing for time while the nuclear programme advances. In response, Mr Netanyahu is pressing Washington to impose a deadline on diplomatic efforts to resolve the confrontation.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, appeared to turn him down on Monday, saying publicly that America was “not setting deadlines for Iran”.

Mr Netanyahu delivered a caustic response Monday, saying that under these circumstances, no one could expect Israel to remain patient. “The world tells Israel to wait because there is still time,” said Mr Netanyahu. “And I ask: wait for what? Until when? Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

This approach would only embolden Iran, warned Mr Netanyahu. “If Iran knows that there is no red line or deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it is doing today – continuing to work unhindered towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and, from there, nuclear bombs,” he said

The prime minister’s language will increase fears that Israel is intent on launching a unilateral strike on Iran.

Some observers see Mr Netanyahu’s threats to attack Iran as hollow, believing that Israel does not have a viable military option. They judge that Mr Netanyahu’s real aim is to ensure that the US and European powers continue to maximize the pressure on Tehran,

Peace…Right

particularly by imposing tougher sanctions.

However, his threats were taken seriously enough for Mr Cameron to send a senior British envoy to Israel to convey his concern. Sources confirmed that this official, whose identity has not been disclosed, saw Mr Netanyahu about two weeks ago. A British diplomat in Jerusalem and the Israeli prime minister’s office declined to comment.

Mr Netanyahu’s tough approach has apparently earned Washington’s displeasure, with reports in the Israeli press last night claiming that President Barack Obama has turned down a request from Mr Netanyahu for a meeting during the United Nations general assembly later this month. An unnamed Israeli official said the Israeli prime minister had been told by the White House that there was not room in the presidential schedule.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Mr Obama, dismissed the report, saying that the President and Mr Netanyahu were not meeting because they would not be in New York at the same time.

However, he did not address the claim that Mr Netanyahu was prepared to travel to Washington in order to meet at the White House.

The two leaders have had a testy relationship, with Mr Netanyahu once lecturing the president in the Oval Office on the importance of US support for Israel. Obama officials have also expressed frustration at how Mr Netanyahu has consistently pressurised them to adopt an aggressive posture towards Tehran.

The US believes diplomacy can still deliver a solution before Iran achieves the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, said this threshold would be reached in “a little more than a year”. He said: “We think we will have the opportunity, once we know that they’ve made that decision, to take the action necessary to stop [Iran].”

Mr Panetta told CBS: “We have the forces in place to be able to not only defend ourselves, but to do what we have to do, to try to stop them from developing nuclear weapons.”

Note from the Common Constitutionalist: They all have to go, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al. Diplomacy will not work with Iran. Heck, it never works anywhere with anyone. Iran will simply never stop until they reach their goal or are forced to stop.

America and the UK are willing to chatter on and wait until Israel is annihilated and then simply point fingers and blame someone else. What is Netanyahu to do? The fate of his entire nation rests on this decision. He does not have the geographic luxury to fiddle about with a bunch of idle talk. Iran is less than 1,000 miles from Israel. With one strategically placed short-range nuclear missile, Israel is effectively gone.

Frankly, they may not even wait to produce a weapon. Considering the recent alliances they have or are forging with the Brotherhood controlled countries, effectively surrounding Israel, Iran will be able to attack Israel from all sides.

Considering all that has transpired in the past few days, might the Obama and Cameron administrations see the light and stand with Israel? The short answer; NO! 

 With extermination a possibility, I wouldn’t wait either.

Grandpa Rambo

A 92-year-old war veteran who shot dead an intruder at his home says he has only one regret – that he didn’t shoot the alleged burglar’s accomplices.

Earl Jones from Boone County, Kentucky, killed Lloyd (Adam) Maxwell after the intruder broke into his home at 2am on Monday with two accomplices.

He told the Enquirer: ‘These people aren’t worth any more to me than a groundhog. They have our country in havoc. We got so many damned crooked people walking around today.’

 
Second World War veteran Earl Jones at the door the intruders entered to gain access to his basement
Second World War veteran Earl Jones at the door the intruders entered to gain access to his basement
 
Lloyd (Adam) Maxwell who was shot dead by Earl Jones after breaking into the pensioner's farmLloyd (Adam) Maxwell who was shot dead by Earl Jones after breaking into Jones’s home

Jones said that on the night of the shooting, he heard a bang coming from the basement and walked eight paces to get his loaded .22 caliber rifle from behind the bedroom door.

He then returned to his armchair in the living room where he had been watching the TV and lay in wait for the intruders to enter.

When Maxwell kicked the basement door open 15 minutes later Mr Jones fired off a shot at his chest and killed him.

Maxwell’s accomplices Ryan Dalton, 22, and Donnie Inabnit, 20,then fled, dragging the dead man with them.

It was the third time Jones, who has worked on the same farm since 1955, has been broken into this year.

Earl Jones said he was only sorry that two others who took part in the raid escaped unharmed.

‘I was hoping another one would come up – I aimed right for his heart,’ he said.

Jones also showed little emotion over killing 24-year-old Lloyd Maxwell who was gunned down during the home invasion.

‘Was I scared? Was I mad? Hell, no.

 
Ryan Dalton
Donnie Inabnit
 

Escaped unhurt: Ryan Dalton, 22, (upper), and Donnie Inabnit (lower), 20, fled with their accomplices’ body

 
The chair in the living room which Earl Jones sat to watch his basement door while waiting for the intruders to enter
The chair in the living room which Earl Jones sat to watch his basement door while waiting for the intruders to enter

 
The basement door that was kicked in from the outside to give the intruders access to the house
The basement door that was kicked in from the outside to give the intruders access to the house

“It was simple. That man was going to take my life. He was hunting me. I was protecting myself.”

Jones, who served in army during WW2, was alone at his 500 acre ranch in Verona, Kentucky, when he heard noises outside.

Police do not expect to charge Jones with a crime as Kentucky as the state has a “stand your ground law” that allows householders to use deadly force if they are in fear of their lives.

Jones is adamant that he was within his right to shoot the intruder at the home he has lived in since 1955.

The break-in was the third he has experienced in this year.

‘I didn’t go to war for nothing. I have the right to carry a gun. That’s what I told the police this morning.” according to the Enquirer newspaper.

Police said Dalton, 22, and Inabnit, 20, were arrested later.

The pair called police to report their friend had been shot. They later admitted to taking part in the raid on Jones’s home.

Dalton and Inabnit, both from Dry Ridge, have been charged with second degree burglary and tampering with evidence, but Mr Jones may yet escape conviction thanks to Kentucky’s ‘castle doctrine’ which is enshrined in law.

Nationally the killing of criminals by individuals trying to defend their property has increased in recent years, from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010, according to FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics. 

Kenton County Police found Maxwell’s body and the two uninjured men in a 2001 Chevrolet Impala who later admitted to being at Jones’ home.

In April, thieves stole 90 of Mr Jones’ cows from a field behind his property and in August burglars took a television, a several thousand dollars and a personal check from his house.

Attribution: Mail Online

Act of War?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The attack on the Libyan and Egyptian embassies are said to be a response to an anti-Muslim YouTube movie titled, “Innocence of Muslims” that derides the leader of the Muslim faith, Mohammed and also the Islam holy book, the Koran. (I’ve seen at least

Mohammed depicted in “Innocence of Muslims”

some of it. It’s pretty funny; not the content, that was spot on, but the cinematography. It’s like one of those old Godzilla movies.)  

Anyway, the U.S. ambassador to Lybia that was killed was the same man who was instrumental in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi , thus clearing the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood . That’s some thanks for a job well done. It’s like 1979 in Iran, but instead of American hostages, there are just corpses. And instead of Carter we have Obama.

Now, no one is ever allowed to make light (or tell the truth) of the Koran, Mohammed, or anything Islam.

Anyone, anywhere is, however, allowed to mock, degrade and subvert the Christian or Jewish faiths with impunity. The United States government is allowed to command the Catholic faith toss out one of the most precious tenets of their faith with forced

Piss Christ and the Jackass who created it

contraception, and most likely, abortions on demand. Yet, these same people would never dare speak ill of the Muslim community, for fear of merely cause the Muslims to feel bad, much less having their heads cut off.

I wonder if the raid by the Brotherhood (and make no mistake, this was the Brothers, or a wholly owned subsidiary of) was caused by viewing the Democrat National Convention? How is that, you say?

At said Convention, the peace-loving leftists joyously and publicly exclaimed that they killed Osama bin Laden no less than 21 times.

Those who attacked were actually shouting “Obama, Obama; there are still a billion Osama’s”. Remember, it was the anniversary of 9-11 on that day. This dopey little movie had very little or nothing to do with it. Obviously, this is just an excuse, for violence against the infidels. It is also my firm belief that this was not just some spontaneous riot. This was a premeditated, coordinated attack.

There is evidence unfolding that the ambassador and staff were told the area of the embassy they were in was not safe and they should be moved to a more secure location. The Brotherhood was then told where the Americans were moved to, affording the opportunity to attack. Another question, that will surely ruffle some feathers is, were the Brothers, in any way, facilitated by those Brotherhood members in the U.S. administration or State Department. It has to be asked! 

And how did our, tough on terrorists, government react? Here is the statement issued:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

So, instead of taking a hard line agianst the terrorists, we essentially apologize to the them. They have to just be laughing at how pitifully weak we are.

Mitt Romney’s response to the Obama administration statement was a tad more apropos:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

I believe it is fact that our embassies in every foreign land throughout the globe, are sovereign U.S. territory, just as foreign embassies in this country are not within U.S. jurisdiction. That being the case, is not an attack on our embassy considered an attack on United States soil? Is that not then a defacto, act of war?

Now we have yet another glimpse at our Commander in Chief, who is charged with protecting us. Heck of a job he’s doing, eh.

I almost forgot to mention that Obama is currently funneling taxpayer money to the “rebels” in Syria, who are tools of the Muslim Brotherhood and on the day our diplomatic facilities were being attacked, it was also revealed that the Obama Administration was negotiating a deal with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood that would give them $1 billion to buy German submarines.

So who’s side is this guy really on anyway?

Attribution: Tad Cronn at Political Outcast

Work it Out

It sounds like a couch potato’s dream: two-and-a-half minutes of exercise could be just as good as a 90-minute run.

Research suggests that short, sharp bursts of exercise are better at warding off heart disease than much longer – but less strenuous – sessions.

Academic Stuart Gray asked a group of men aged between 18 and 35 to either do high-intensity sprints on an exercise bike or walk for half an hour on a treadmill.

Those on the exercise bike pedalled as hard as they could for 30 seconds, rested for up to four minutes and then repeated the pattern four times.

This meant that, in all, they did two and a half minutes of exercise strenuous enough to make them sweat and leave them out of breath.

The others walked at the sort of brisk pace recommended in health guidelines.

A day later, they came back into the lab and ate a fatty breakfast and lunch consisting of bread, mayonnaise and cheese.

Their blood was then tested to see how quickly the levels of fat in their blood fell – as fat lingering in the blood after eating is known to trigger the first in a series of steps that can lead to clogging of the arteries and heart disease.

The results revealed that walking cut fat by 11 per cent, compared with not doing any exercise.

'Less strenuous': The other group of men were asked to walk for half an hour on a treadmillBut the short sharp bursts of exercise cut it by 33 per cent – the sort of effect expected from a 90-minute run.

Dr Gray, of Aberdeen University, told the British Science Festival that short bursts of intensive exercise may somehow spur the liver into taking in more fat from the blood, before storing it or burning it off.

He said that, while the high intensity training ‘won’t necessarily’ improve strength, it does boost endurance. He added that the short duration of the exercise was ‘highly important as time is often cited as the main barrier to taking part in exercise’.

The need to rest between the high-intensity activity means the whole routine took around 20 minutes – and it has to be done regularly.

Dr Gray said: ‘Although moderate intensity, longer sessions of exercise can help protect the body against cardio-vascular disease, the findings of our study showed that higher-intensity shorter intervals of exercise might be a more effective method to improve health and reduce the time commitment to exercise.’

 Attribution: Mail Online

An Offer You Can’t Refuse

Senior Obama Campaign adviser David Axelrod reportedly contacted the Gallup Organization to discuss the company’s research methodology after their poll’s findings were unfavorable to the President. After declining to adjust their methodology, Gallup was named in an unrelated lawsuit by the DOJ. 

Axelrod took to Twitter to direct people to an article by the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein suggesting a flaw in Gallup’s methodology. Brownstein compared Gallup’s demographic sampling predictions to previous election exit polls as well as contemporaneous research released by Pew, CNN/ORC and ABC/WaPo.

The heart of the Obama camp complaint lies with varying predictive models for 2012 turnout. Gallup had predicted a lower minority turnout, effecting Obama’s margin against Romney.

An email chain from Gallup employees reveals the deliberations about how to handle Axelrod:

In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”

 That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc. …”

The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.

In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”

“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there….would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”

Since Axelrod first contacted Gallup, the DOJ has become interested in an old allegation made by a former Gallup employee, claiming that the firm violated the False Claims Act by overcharging on their contracts with other federal agencies. Michael Lindley, a former Gallup employee, filed suit against Gallup in 2009 and Gallup was served and responsed to Lindley’s suit in 2010. The DOJ signed on to Lindley’s suit in August of 2012.

Lindley, was a former field organizer in Iowa for the Obama campaign in 2008.

In addition to Gallup’s unfavorable polling numbers on the Obama re-election effort, they have also published employment numbers that are not “politically helpful” for Obama.

“Gallup publishes its research without seasonal adjustments,” William Tate wrote for the American Thinker. ”The BLS’s version applies adjustments in an alchemic formula that’s more mysterious than the Shroud of Turin.”