In this case, the usual suspects are the liberal-owned Democrats and the usual target is our nation’s ability to defend itself.

Several weeks ago we resolved to try and get away from politics for awhile, since it’s all pretty much the same thing every day now, the leftists on their side of the aisle leading Republican politicians, and America, down the road to hell by the nose, but it’s just so difficult not to comment when one feels offended, as an American and a patriot, by what some of those we’ve elected to govern us are doing and what, just as important, others are not doing to prevent it!

So,

Either the GOP has few genuine conservatives in it anymore, or those it does contain are so spineless or corrupt that all they do is take up space that might be better used by men and women with the guts and resolve to embrace the conservative cause.

Patriots who are willing and able to place America before their self seeking need to be reelected.

Well, here are the usual suspects on the left side in action.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday said no budget cuts will be off-limits as the Pentagon looks to tighten its belt.

“We need to challenge all past assumptions, and we need to put everything on the table,” Hagel said in his first major policy address, according to prepared remarks.

In other words…

Speaking at National Defense University at Fort McNair, Hagel defended his review of the military’s strategy, which he ordered shortly after taking over at the Pentagon.

He said the military must look at change “that involves not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices but, where necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges.”

…fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges.

That, as we’ve learned over the past 4 years, 2 1/2 months, is, in Obama Administration speak, synonymous with dismantling, to the fullest extent possible, yet another institution that has kept America safe and strong, dragging us still further down to defenseless, third world s–thole status.

They (no, LOL, not as in “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you” they, but they as in the far left wingers now inhabiting the Democratic party and their most efficient tool to date, President B. Hussein Obama) have eroded our economy in every sector, plunging the nation into debt, attacked American morality on all levels from the sanctity of marriage to institutions like the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments and the freedom for religious medical venues to reject treating or funding abortion and other abominations that go against their beliefs and now they’re attacking our very rights via an assault on the Second Amendment.

So yes, we should all be just a little worried when a left wing Obama stooge like Hagel uses his status as Defense Secretary to fashion entirely new anythings that are “better suited to 21st century realities and challenges”.

Yeah, yeah, call me a skeptic, but what else could anyone with any common sense be after seeing Obama Administration “have to read between the lines to get to the truth” shenanigans for more than a full term?

At any rate, the entire article can be read here.

After all, if those fat, lazy, complacent politicians on the Hill weren’t so anxious to get in their usual slothful weekend, we wouldn’t be seeing this

The Senate has reached a deal that will allow a vote on a measure to keep the government funded and possibly prevent a weekend of work on the budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced the deal on amendments to the government-funding measure on Wednesday afternoon, ending a stalemate in the Senate that had thrown off the upper chamber’s schedule.

Votes on several amendments will start at 2:15 p.m. Wednesday, and the Senate is expected to approve the funding measure that afternoon. The Senate will then immediately begin considering the Senate Democratic budget.
A “vote-a-rama” featuring dozens of amendments is expected on the budget, meaning delaying a final vote on the funding measure could have left the Senate scheduled to vote on the budget Saturday or even Sunday. The Senate is scheduled to begin a recess after it concludes work on Friday.

The deal announced Wednesday doesn’t eliminate the possibility of weekend votes, but it does make it more likely that the Senate could complete work on the budget sometime on Friday. The Senate had been set to vote on the funding measure as late as Thursday afternoon. With the deal, a final vote will occur Wednesday afternoon.

Let ‘em start doing what we pay them to do…

Although we all vote mostly Republican, this is a strong example as to why, for the last half dozen years or so, Seth, Wolf and I have been registering Independent.

Multiple high-ranking Republicans announced that they were willing to raise taxes as part of a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” breaking the pledges they had made to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. Said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

I agree with Grover, we shouldn’t raise rates, but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt. What do you do with the money? I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs, but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.

Graham did say he would not vote to raise tax rates, but that he would vote to cap deductions. “If you cap deductions around the $30,000, $40,000 range, you can raise $1 trillion in revenue, and the people who lose their deductions are the upper-income Americans,” said Graham.

Graham wasn’t the only Republican to backtrack on his pledge not to raise taxes today. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said he’d vote, too, to cap deductions on NBC’s Meet the Press. “I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss. A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress,” King stated. “The world has changed and the economic situation is different.”

The Republican Party’s elected politicians still aren’t listening.

Even when they had the majority in both the House and the Senate, they allowed the liberal-run Democrats to push us continually to the left so that they found themselves facing harder choices down the road when it came to extricating us from the bitter fruits of lefty legislation. Then, rather than work harder to find a solution, they simply cave to the Democrats.

Was the birth of the Tea Party all for naught? Were no messages received and understood by the GOP?

Apparently not!

I say “gone” because “come a long way” depicts a positive, and where the Democrats have gone is anything but positive from any viewpoint invoking love of country, honesty or, for that matter, honor.

The corruption within the ranks of the Democrats can probably be laid at the feet of the liberals who bought out their party in the last two decades or so, but still, the deeds that can be attributable to these people are anything but acceptable in America, where we’re supposed to be a nation of laws.

“Sure,” some will argue, there are crooked Republicans, but for every one of those there seem to be fifty bent Democrats.

New York, a Democrat run state, is teeming with corrupt politicians, but other states wherein Democrats are prominent have their own share of criminal Democrats as well.

From JP Attitude:

On Monday, Trenton Mayor Tony Mack was arrested by the FBI for corruption. Tony Mack represents the blight that has destroyed the great cities of America, the blight of crooked Democrat mayors who have systematically raped and pillaged the cities they were elected to lead.

If you don’t live in a major urban area, you don’t know how bad it is. Travel across America and you will find city after city with the same feature: a rotten core of disintegrating infrastructure, dysfunctional schools, and violent crime. Detroit looks worse than Kabul or Baghdad, recent war zones. East St. Louis sends kids to school in buildings where sewage is backed up in the hallways. Vast areas of Los Angeles are run by gangs playacting like feudal lords from the Middle Ages. Chicago had 52 shootings over Memorial Day weekend, ten of them fatal – you’re safer walking around Baghdad with a big silver cross than walking around in Chicago.

What do all of those cities have in common? Decades of Democrat mayors.

If you think Tony Mack is an exception, maybe I should list other examples. What do you think? Can I list ten examples of corrupt Democrat mayors since the year 2000?

Read on…

What about honesty in elections, wherein eligible American citizens get to choose our leaders?

From Godfather Politics:

As we draw closer to the elections in November, we are learning there are numerous ways to win an election other than by the ballots cast by legal registered voters.

In several state primaries, it was discovered that dead people and non-U.S. citizens had voted. In some states, there are still thousands of dead people and non-citizens on the voter registration rolls. Why, we’ve even read where a guy’s dog that had been dead for two years received a voter registration card in the mail.

And through it all, the Democrats have fought tooth and nail to prevent states from cleaning up their voter registration records and removing dead people and non-citizens. They have also fought long and hard to prevent states from enacting voter ID laws and in some instances the DOJ has declared such laws discriminatory and illegal.

I always have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the Democrats on claiming the voter ID is discriminatory and will prevent poor black people from voting. Those same poor black people have to have some form of ID in order to receive all of the government aid and handouts they get, so what makes a voter ID any different? Besides, thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives and limbs to secure and maintain the right to vote, but not to secure and maintain government entitlements.

Snip!

Chicago, where Obama started his political career has a long history of corrupt elections. The cities motto for years was if you can win an election legally, steal it any way you can.

In 2008, Obama won Virginia by seven points. At the moment, the polls show the race between Obama and Romney to be much closer. That means that Obama is going to need the vote of every dead person, non-citizen, pet and convicted felon, along with the voter intimidation of New Black Panther members if he wants to secure his victory in November.

Yes, the Democrats of today could sure give the likes of their like-minded soulmates, this one for example, a run for their money….

Nothing like having a President who is completely unqualified to protect and defend us against our enemies. No, nothing like it.

…Bargisi isn’t sure yet what, if any, relationship the revolutionary toughs have with the Islamists. “It was organized by the jihadis, like Zawahiri’s brother. But that’s not who’s dominating the crowd right now. This Salafi guy I know comes over to fix stuff in my house. He’s a carpenter. He says, ‘Why care about this movie anyway? Have these people watched every movie ever made? I am quite sure this happens often. What’s new? America sucks, nothing new.’”

But to hear the media talk, it’s all Romney’s fault for talking out of turn. Melanie Phillips though, has another idea: what people are witnessing is a policy failure.

The Arab Winter has not brought forth democracy but unleashed anarchy and religious fanaticism, with Islamic mobs hitherto kept under control by Gaddafi and Mubarak now empowered, strengthened and rampaging out of control throughout the region.

We know who are the real guilty men here. Even now, Obama is stroking the enemies of the west while kicking its allies in the crutch. “Too busy” to see Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu when he comes to Washington later this month to beg for American help in preventing Iran from obtaining the nuclear weapons which it will use to achieve its declared aim of wiping Israel from the face of the earth, Obama will nevertheless meet Morsi, who has so far issued only qualified regret for the storming of the US embassy in Cairo, demanded that the US government take action against the maker of the anti-Islamic film — and who last spring released from an Egyptian prison Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda’s current leader and who led the mob who stormed the Cairo embassy this week.

SNIP!

…But even NBC’s foreign correspondent in Egypt is scratching his head over an Obama pronouncement that Egypt is “not an ally or an enemy.”

I almost had to sit down when I heard that. For the last forty years, the United States has had two main allies in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other ally in the Middle East being Israel. For the President to come out and say, well, he’s not exactly sure if Egypt is an ally any more but it’s not an enemy, that is a significant change in the perspective of Washington toward this country, the biggest country in the Arab world. It makes one wonder, well, was it worth it? Was it worth supporting the Arab Spring, supporting the demonstrations here in Tahrir Square, when now in Tahrir Square there are clashes going on behind me right in front of the US embassy?

That’s because Romney “shoots first and asks questions later.” But the NBC correspondent left out the best part. President Obama may not know who his allies are in the region at all. He’s pulled out of Iraq and refused to stand up to Iran. And the way things are going, it is increasingly unclear whether he’s sure that Israel — that other main ally in the region — is an “ally or enemy” either. The president has achieved the remarkable (possibly the historic) attainment of getting both the Islamic world and Israel mad at his policies. James Lewis at American Thinker tries to make sense of it.

In Egypt, Coptic Christian churches have been burned, and priests killed. Egyptian tanks — US-made main battle tanks — have been sent into the Sinai Desert near the Israeli border. Turkey is now run by a neo-Ottoman gang of thugs. Insanity is running amok again, and the New York Times can’t see anything wrong. But that’s the New York Times for you.

Obama has just publicly refused to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu while he is in our country attending the UN General Assembly. Too busy, says our hero. It’s too hard to schedule.

The Democratic Convention surrendered to American Muslims with an elaborate prayer meeting, while dropping God and Jerusalem from their official platform. American Jews are fast losing power and influence, and radical Muslims are bringing Shari’a to America. You can see it happening.

Most American Jews are still brain-locked, because they are liberals. Half of American Jews will still vote for Obama rather than admit they were wrong — disastrously wrong — about liberalism ever since the radicals took over in 1968.

Obama’s surrender signals are understood all over the world, except at home.

“Obama’s surrender signals are understood all over the world, except at home.” That is where Lewis gets it wrong. The surrender signals aren’t understood abroad either because the president is surrendering to everybody so indiscriminately that he’s got everyone confused. The very same chief executive who sends letters of condolence to the families of deceased SEALs with a form letter and an electric pen is engaged in the same promiscuous white-flag waving everywhere he goes. The message is: “To whom it may concern: I give up. I confess to Romney’s guilt and express regret for everything he has done in advance. Yours, the once-in-a-generation president.”

It’s not like such a “brilliant” scholar as himself, our president, isn’t aware that we’ve been at war with Islam since Jefferson’s time.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

On the other hand, President Barack Hussein doesn’t seem to care much, one way or the other, if his lack of attendance at those pesky intelligence briefings POTUSes are expected to have daily is any indication.

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

Oh, wait a minute, that’s right! Campaigning to get reelected is definitely more important than some piddling duty like keeping the country and Americans abroad, including those serving U.S. (we, the people’s) interests overseas safe?

This is not to say, of course, that Misseur Obama doesn’t have his priorities straight in some areas.

The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Let’s rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In addition to protecting “the free exercise of religion,” even if it’s one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press.

Every day in America people attack worldviews they don’t agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed.

SNIP!

There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States.

Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment have also gotten into the act. For example,

“ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater.’ Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, ‘So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred.’”

Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No one’s going to shoot up the place if someone shouts “fire.” It’s the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false.

Moving on, what about a general rehashment of the incumbent administration’s Middle East policy in general?

Obama’s Mideast Policy? What policy?

From Heritage’s The Foundry:

The breaking news keeps breaking when it comes to revelations surrounding the attacks and protests aimed at U.S. embassies going on throughout the Islamic world. Protests have spread to at least eight countries. Reports indicate that four people have been arrested relating to the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff there. That offers at least the promise of getting more information about the deliberate attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., government authorities identified the man behind the controversial film purported as the cause for the protests as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Californian with a shadowy past including many aliases and a criminal record.

Unlike a Brad Thor novel, however, we can’t just jump to the end of the story to find out what this all means for American policy in this troubled part of the world.

But (again, unlike a Brad Thor novel) without cheating we can predict how the story is going to end—because the result of the President’s Middle East policies was predictable from the start.

Obama’s strategy for this part of the world started out much the way Jimmy Carter’s did—with acts of conciliation and accommodation. The President narrowly focused his priorities on three objectives: 1) withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible; 2) engaging with Syria and Iran; and 3) transforming the U.S. into a neutral party—to negotiate peace between Palestine and Israel.

For starters, we know that all three of those objectives have met with abject failure.

Iraq was not only left a shaky state; it has become a shaky friend—defying U.S. requests to block Iranian flights that are rearming the Syrian military so they can kill more Syrian civilians.

After wasting three years of trying to find common ground with the totalitarian regimes in Syria and Iran, even the White House has acknowledged failure, calling for the government in Damascus to step down and asking for more sanctions on Tehran.

Finally, the peace process has collapsed—a blessing in disguise, because if Obama succeeded in creating a Palestinian state today, it would look an awful lot like the Syrian regime the rest of the region is trying to bring down—a corrupt state that oppresses its own people, a state sponsor of terrorism, and a tool of Iran.

The President’s policy, however, has been more than unsuccessful—the “Obama doctrine” has taken the cause of protecting U.S. interests in the region backward—because it relied on a self-imposed agenda of self-weakening. It included distancing the U.S. from Israel and playing politics with the U.S. defense budget—where even his own officials acknowledge that if the automatic cuts required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 go into effect, they will undermine the readiness and reduce the capabilities of the armed forces.

SNIP!

The breaking news keeps breaking when it comes to revelations surrounding the attacks and protests aimed at U.S. embassies going on throughout the Islamic world. Protests have spread to at least eight countries. Reports indicate that four people have been arrested relating to the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff there. That offers at least the promise of getting more information about the deliberate attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., government authorities identified the man behind the controversial film purported as the cause for the protests as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Californian with a shadowy past including many aliases and a criminal record.

Unlike a Brad Thor novel, however, we can’t just jump to the end of the story to find out what this all means for American policy in this troubled part of the world.

But (again, unlike a Brad Thor novel) without cheating we can predict how the story is going to end—because the result of the President’s Middle East policies was predictable from the start.

Obama’s strategy for this part of the world started out much the way Jimmy Carter’s did—with acts of conciliation and accommodation. The President narrowly focused his priorities on three objectives: 1) withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible; 2) engaging with Syria and Iran; and 3) transforming the U.S. into a neutral party—to negotiate peace between Palestine and Israel.

For starters, we know that all three of those objectives have met with abject failure.

Iraq was not only left a shaky state; it has become a shaky friend—defying U.S. requests to block Iranian flights that are rearming the Syrian military so they can kill more Syrian civilians.

After wasting three years of trying to find common ground with the totalitarian regimes in Syria and Iran, even the White House has acknowledged failure, calling for the government in Damascus to step down and asking for more sanctions on Tehran.

Finally, the peace process has collapsed—a blessing in disguise, because if Obama succeeded in creating a Palestinian state today, it would look an awful lot like the Syrian regime the rest of the region is trying to bring down—a corrupt state that oppresses its own people, a state sponsor of terrorism, and a tool of Iran.

The President’s policy, however, has been more than unsuccessful—the “Obama doctrine” has taken the cause of protecting U.S. interests in the region backward—because it relied on a self-imposed agenda of self-weakening. It included distancing the U.S. from Israel and playing politics with the U.S. defense budget—where even his own officials acknowledge that if the automatic cuts required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 go into effect, they will undermine the readiness and reduce the capabilities of the armed forces.

It’s time for a different course.

Read On…

Obama, our enemies’ best friend…

*********UPDATE***********

In the “Chickens Coming Home To Roost” Department, Obama’s Chamberlainian policies toward the Islamofascists seem to getting him/us exactly where such kow-towing always gets one when done with such people, as the Muslims show their true colors.

When, if ever, will this president learn?

In The half grovel at the urinal, Wesley Pruden hit the proverbial nail right on its proverbial head regarding the infamous, nefarious, dreaded, um, whatever other adjectives might be applied now well known video of U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of newly killed Taliban terrorists.

Yes, I know, one (wo)man’s terrorist is another (wo)man’s freedom fighter, but when you stop to consider the kind of hell-on-earth oppression the Taliban represents for anyone unlucky to be governed by them, especially women, and the fact that they’ve enthusiastically provided a home, cover, protection and support for the monsters of al-Qaeda, these “people” hardly qualify as any kind of combatants for liberty. NO, they’re more like filthy, obscene, satanic animals.

That said, courtesy of Jewish World Review (same link as above), heeeere’s Mr. Pruden!

Where’s a Porta-Potty when a few good men need one?

This is the question Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, ought to concern himself with, instead of trying to top Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, with over-the-top “outrage” over a Marine patrol taking a leak on the bodies of several freshly killed terrorists in Afghanistan.

If Mr. Panetta had been doing his job, he might have found enough Porta-Potties to spell battlefield relief for the Marines. This should teach him a needed lesson. Battlefield rest rooms are important, and will become even more important when women are dispatched to the battlefield. Lady grunts will expect something more than toilet-seat etiquette or an inconvenient bush or tree stump to protect their modesty.

The defense secretary and the secretary of state were each eager to out-deplore, out-lament and out-bewail the other, playing for the cameras a ferocious game of “can you top this?” Mr. Panetta said what the Marines did was “utterly deplorable.” It’s hard to get beyond “utterly,” but Mrs. Clinton called in her crack linguistics team at the State Department — where plain speech is utterly frowned on — and she soon pronounced herself in “total dismay” on hearing the news, and was sure that the “vast, vast” majority of “American military personnel” would never, ever do what those awful Marines did.

Mrs. Clinton’s description of that “vast, vast” majority, and not merely a “vast” majority, was taken to be an indication that she thought the Marines’ offense must have been twice as bad as the offense of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” tormenting Bubba for indulging in inappropriate merriment with a regiment of big-haired ladies at the White House. A secretary of state must use language precisely, and carefully ration her vasts.

Nevertheless, urine is rarely a proper salute even to dead terrorists, and the four Marines who relieved themselves on Taliban corpses should be properly disciplined. Americans, instructed by a culture informed by the certitudes of Jewish and Christian faith, are better than that. Still, sending two senior Cabinet officers do what a second lieutenant could have done was just short of a full grovel. The Obama administration stopped just short of sending the president himself to deliver a deep bow and a fulsome apology to the Taliban terrorists.

Mr. Panetta, who served two years as an Army intelligence officer several decades ago, knows better. Mrs. Clinton, whose hands-on knowledge of warfare and weaponry is limited to the lamps she threw at Bubba in the White House, has no knowledge of what Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, the infamous Civil War firebug, was talking about when he famously said “war is hell.”

Dehumanizing the enemy is the first task of the men who send boys to war, men who never have to learn that war is more than merely a policy option. “But of course [these Marines] have dehumanized the enemy,” Sebastian Junger, a documentary filmmaker who spent a year with an Army platoon in theKorengal Valley of eastern Afghanistan, observes in The Washington Post. “Otherwise they would have to face the enormous guilt and anguish of killing other human beings. Rather than demonstrate a callous disregard for the enemy, this awful incident might reveal something else: a desperate attempt by confused young men to convince themselves that they haven’t just committed their first murder — that they have simply shot some coyotes on the back 40.”

Rick Perry got it right when he said the Obama administration’s rhetoric showed “a disdain for the military.” The incontinent Marines should be reprimanded, but filing criminal charges against them is unreasonable. “Kids, 18- and 19-year old kids make stupid mistakes all too often and that’s what occurred here. To call it a criminal act is over the top.”

An anonymous veteran of the Vietnam war makes a similar point in an Internet blog. “I was on the line in the A Shau Valley with the 101st Airborne Division. At Camp Sally, not a Club Med place to be. Nor for the faint of heart. You must understand that those who live war are a different breed. Perhaps later, much later, maturity rearranges one’s focus.”

What we need now is the rearrangement of the focus of the old men who send young men to war. They don’t have youth and inexperience to excuse their sins, miscalculations and misjudgments. Old men should keep this in mind when deciding how to discipline the Marines they sent across the seas to defend and, if need be die, for the rest of us.

Having been married to a career warrior for going on four decades, I will say this: While my Wolf could not discuss most of his work with anyone not directly involved in it, we have had discussions on the psychological effects of combat on those young men sent to alien places to fight for our country; There is a mortal ferocity to war that I won’t pretend, even after hearing my husband’s first-hand observations on the experience, to understand from the viewpoint of a combatant who is essentially over there fighting not only to achieve victory for his country, but also trying to survive, to stay alive, and to look after his comrades as well.

Acording to the Wolf, different people react differently to combat, these reactions boiling down to “whatever helps the psyche cope with the killing, the fear and the inevitable massive adrenaline overdose that is crucial to staying alive in battle”.

The “utterly deplorable”, “total dismay” and other rhetoric employed by the usual suspects are nothing more than left wing politics by totally deplorable, vastly, vastly left wing liberals more concerned with trashing our country and our military at every opportunity rather than supporting a striving for the excellence of the former or the gallantry and patriotism of the latter.

…this kind of filthy, sleazy prophylacticism generally leads to instant dismissal, and with good cause.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state’s controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations’ human rights commissioner.

The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is “downright offensive” that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.

Governor Brewer is absolutely right, in fact…

“The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” Brewer wrote.

And some actually deny that the leftists running our government are traitors!

Now the federal government, under the inspired leadership of Obama tool/Attorney General Eric Holder, is discussing legally challenging Arizona’s new anti-illegal alien law.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday said he would not rule out a legal challenge to Arizona’s new immigration law.

Speaking with reporters in Washington, Holder said no decision had been made but the Department of Justice was coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security on how Washington should respond to passage of legislation that would punish people who are detained in Arizona and are unable to prove they are in the United States legally.

“We are considering all possibilities, including the possibility of a court challenge,” he said.

Holder said the Arizona law was “unfortunate.”

“I think that it is, I fear, subject to potential abuse,” he said. “And I’m very concerned about the wedge that it could draw between communities that law enforcement is supposed to serve and those of us in law enforcement.”

Unfortunate? Potential abuse?

There is a reason these people are called illegal aliens, and that is because federal law makes it so, yet here we have a federal government that is not only failing, by design, to enforce its own laws, but is preparing to dispute the enforcement of those same laws by a state that is suffering greatly from this failure on the part of the federal government to enforce those laws, in effect treating the state of Arizona like some band of vigilantes and ignoring Arizona’s sovereignty as a state.

The reason for the Democrats and O pretending that illegal doesn’t mean illegal is simple: They hope someday to enact an amnesty bill, and then each amnestied alien would equal one Democrat vote, and to hell with the American people or what’s best for them. This should be obvious to anyone who can pick up a newspaper or get on the internet.

Obama called the new law “misguided” and ordered the Justice Department to investigate whether it would violate civil rights.

These criminal aliens do not have American civil rights, they are neither Americans nor even legally here.

Check ‘em, cuff ‘em, stuff ‘em and send ‘em off!

…of what we can expect from a totalitarian regime, such as the one O, the emperor wannabe in the Oval Office, would like us to have.

This incident is merely a portend of what we could expect if Obama and his portside cronies are permitted to stay in power:

On the first Tuesday in November, two uniformed men arrived at a voting place and took up positions by the entry doors. In the hours that followed, they harassed voters and election officials, hurled racial epithets and physically blocked persons of other races who sought to cast their votes On the first Tuesday in November, two uniformed men arrived at a voting place and took up for president of the United States. One of the men brandished a nightstick.

Bartle Bull, a civil rights movement veteran, was there. He says it was “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s.” The crimes Mr. Bull witnessed that day were not committed in 1960s Mississippi, however. Those crimes took place in 2008 in Philadelphia.

It is regrettable that on the day when the United States elected its first black president, two thugs in Philadelphia perpetrated acts of race-based voter intimidation of the type that marred elections in segregation-era America. It also is inexcusable that President Obama’s Justice Department refuses to fulfill its duty and bring those racists to justice. Led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., political appointees at the Obama Justice Department overruled career federal prosecutors and dropped voter-intimidation charges against the men.

The Justice Department obtained only a narrow, meaningless injunction against the man who taunted voters with the nightstick. He has been enjoined from brandishing a weapon within 100 feet of the entrance to any polling place (an act which was illegal to begin with) but only until November 2012.

Now the Justice Department is obstructing the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s investigation into this case. If two white men had donned police uniforms or white robes and terrorized a voting place, we can be certain the Justice Department would have brought the full force of the law to bear against the perpetrators and vindicated the right to vote - and properly so. In this case, however, the perpetrators were black, and the uniforms they wore bore the insignia of the New Black Panther Party, a black supremacist organization.

Yup, the way this has played out, the Obama Brand © Brown Shirt, completely acceptable to the Obama Administration. If Barack Hussein and his leftist machine didn’t approve, these two thugs would be in beeeeeeg trouble!

But O approves, so what the hay?

Mr. Obama, his attorney general and his Justice Department should reverse course, comply with the Civil Rights Commission’s requests for information and aid - not obstruct - its investigation. This is the only way to restore public faith and confidence in the impartial enforcement of our civil and voting rights laws, which has been seriously damaged by the Obama administration’s actions in this case.

Lots of luck, unless Barack Hussein sees some political advantage in it, but for now, he simply ain’t going after a couple of folks for thugging on his behalf.

Wouldn’t want to offend the black voters…

…post today, given the following.

Bret Stephens had a must-share opinion column in Wall Street Journal Online titled Lady Gaga Versus Middle East Peace.

Pop quiz—What does more to galvanize radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?

If your answer is (b) it means you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism. If, however, you answered (a), then congratulations: You are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration.

Heh, heh. Mr. Stephens hit the nail right on the head with that one.

You have to wonder, however, if the Obama Administration really believes (a), though, or are merely using that POV as a political tool as they use everything else. As we know, veracity, morality, patriotism, ethics, loyalty to the American people or even logic are all of secondary importance to the current president and his cadre when it comes to pushing one of their very un-American agendas (then again, what other kinds of agendas do they embrace?).

The definition of a “fact” with those critters is anything they have to say to get what they want, and they most definitely entertain some profound malevolence for Israel, so with that in mind…

What is that wisdom? In a March 26 column in Human Events, Mr. Buchanan put the case with his usual subtlety:

“Each new report of settlement expansion,” he wrote, “each new seizure of Palestinian property, each new West Bank clash between Palestinians and Israeli troops inflames the Arab street, humiliates our Arab allies, exposes America as a weakling that cannot stand up to Israel, and imperils our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Mr. Buchanan was playing off a story in the Israeli press that Vice President Joe Biden had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “what you’re doing here [in the West Bank] undermines the security of our troops.” Also in the mix was a story that Centcom commander David Petraeus had cited Arab-Israeli tensions as the key impediment to wider progress in the region. Both reports were later denied—in Mr. Biden’s case, via Rahm Emanuel; in Gen. Petraeus’s case, personally and forcefully—but the important point is how eagerly they were believed. If you’re of the view that Israel is the root cause of everything that ails the Middle East—think of it as global warming in Hebrew form—then nothing so powerfully makes the case against the Jewish state as a flag-draped American coffin.

Being me, I had to emphasize that part, LOL.

Anyone in the United States who isn’t brain dead, brain-washed by the evil, sleazy, treasonous, communist mainstream media, deaf, dumb and blind or just plain stupid knew long before Barack Hussein Obama was elected that he was going to go after Israel right out of the gate; after all, they are the sworn enemy of his people.

It must be tough, having to carry the torch for both Islamic jihadis and socialists at the same time.

Now consider Lady Gaga—or, if you prefer, Madonna, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, Josephine Baker or any other American woman who has, at one time or another, personified what the Egyptian Islamist writer Sayyid Qutb once called “the American Temptress.”

Qutb, for those unfamiliar with the name, is widely considered the intellectual godfather of al Qaeda; his 30-volume exegesis “In the Shade of the Quran” is canonical in jihadist circles. But Qutb, who spent time as a student in Colorado in the late 1940s, also decisively shaped jihadist views about the U.S.

In his 1951 essay “The America I Have Seen,” Qutb gave his account of the U.S. “in the scale of human values.” “I fear,” he wrote, “that a balance may not exist between America’s material greatness and the quality of her people.” Qutb was particularly exercised by what he saw as the “primitiveness” of American values, not least in matters of sex.

“The American girl,” he noted, “knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it.” Nor did he approve of Jazz—”this music the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires”—or of American films, or clothes, or haircuts, or food. It was all, in his eyes, equally wretched.

Whoa!!!!

Read the rest here.