Friday, August 17, 2012

Special Operations Speaks to Bob Beckel: Say it to my face!


Yesterday, Fox News’ “The Five” ran a segment on the military members who are taking action against President Barack Obama and his administration for their deliberate, continuing national-security leaks that are endangering the lives of the military men and women who serve and protect the United States of America. In that segment, liberal smear artist Bob Beckel defended the Obama White House’s intentional release of highly sensitive and highly classified security information:

"The idea to suggest that the President of the United States would leak intelligence information, jeopardizing people in the field is close to treason," Beckel said. “If I were them – I assume they are out of the military now – they ought to take their benefits and go home.”

As honorably discharged and retired veterans of the Special Operations communities of all the Armed Forces and their supporters, whose mission in forming Special Operations Speaks is to illuminate the failed operational security environment of the current presidential administration, we find Bob Beckel’s commentary slanderous, insulting and appalling.

Yes Bob, we are indeed “out” of military uniform, but as private citizens in civilian mufti, we are no less dedicated to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States than we were when we first swore to do so when we entered military service and then honorably served our nation. Bob, we are home and one of the “benefits” we enjoy, like you, is freedom of speech under the First Amendment of our sacred Constitution.

To essentially accuse retired Special Operators like ourselves – who dutifully and proudly committed our lives to our country’s service – of treason is to effectively spit upon those military men and women and their families who defended and often died to preserve Beckel’s liberty to say such a heinous thing in the first place. Beckel’s comments are not just overtly disrespectful; they are transparently disdainful of the sacrifices that the American military and their loved ones have made on his behalf.

Fox News, in its misguided attempt to be fair and balanced, has defaulted on its obligation to its audience by continuing to tolerate Beckel’s twisted and bloviated commentary. As such, we demand that Beckel be dismissed forthwith and apologize for his remarks.

On the plus side, Beckel’s comments, however, have only strengthened the resolve of Special Operations Speaks and like military groups who stand united in a mission to stop the White House leaks for personal political gain. To use Beckel’s own comparison, if Beckel was worried about the Swift Boats in 2004, then the combined efforts of Special Operations Speaks, OPSEC and other like-minded Special Operations fraternal organizations will seem like “Swiftboating on Steroids” during this critical 2012 presidential election. Be afraid Bob . . . be very afraid.

As such, Special Operations Speaks will continue speaking out against the Obama White House’s intentional release of national-security information for political gain, and we will not allow yellow hacks like Bob Beckel to deter us from restoring government accountability and a return to the guiding principles upon which our Republic was founded.

To schedule interviews with Dick Brauer or Larry Bailey, co-founders of Special Operations Speaks (SOS), contact Alex Rosenwald at (571) 282-7954 or alex@politicalmedia.com.


# # #
Read the original article at Special Operations Speaks

Recovery Summer 3: July Unemployment Up In 44 States!

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 08/17/2012 | John Merline

In another sign of the ongoing jobs recession, fully 44 states saw their unemployment rates climb in July, according to state-level data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As a result, more than three years after the economic recovery officially started under President Obama, 10 states still have jobless rates of 9% or higher.

Nevada's jobless rate, for example, climbed to 12%, New Jersey's rose to 9.8% and North Carolina's edged up to 9.6%.

The states with the highest rates — Nevada, Rhode Island (10.8%), California (10.7%), New Jersey and North Carolina all voted for Obama in 2008.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

The Life of Barack Obama

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-life-of-barack-obama.html?m=1

Lower expected turnout, Youth vote shift toward Romney and his own tv ads hurting Obama!

coachisright.com ^ | August 17, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

According to new USA Today/Suffolk University poll the voter turnout next November will be around 1.6% less than it was in 2008. The survey found, “Most of the non-voters would choose Barack Obama over Mitt Romney…”

A noted political “expert” thinks Independents will be chased away from the polls by the extremely negative campaigning from Barack Obama and the Democrats, and that is their goal.
He opines, “One of the reasons the Democrats have been so much more negative thus far this year is that they are just trying to keep the independents at home because the polls suggest there is still a larger Democratic base still than a Republican base.”
The truth is “the polls” don’t suggest there are more Democrats than Republicans, in fact they tell us just the opposite and they have indicated this for a long time. Moreover, latest Rasmussen poll of generic preference for Congress shows that likely voters want a Republican Congress by a margin of 42/39.
Rasmussen survey of likely voters shows Romney leading 47/43 which reflects a continuation of the lead he took last week before he named Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate.
indications are that the people who are not showing up this time are for the most part probably coming from the pool of “new” voters whether the young or others who wanted to be “part of history” by voting for Obama. They were one time voters the Democrats can’t and won’t get back.
While new voters are planning to stay home, a new Zogby poll is reporting 41% of “Young voters” aged 18 to 29 who will be voting plan to vote for Romney.
If this holds in November it will deliver 5% more of this group to the Romney/Ryan..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

The Coming Turnaround in 2012

JEFFHEAD.COM ^ | 17 August 2012 | Jeff Head

In order to defeat Barack Hussein Obama in November of 2012, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will need to garner support from as broad a base as possible, within the constraint of the fundamental moral and republican principles that lay at the root of our Republic and its constitution, upon which this Republic has thrived for well over 225 years.

As this list shows, in the most important election of our life time, where the failed big government, statist policies rooted in socialism and marxism represented by Barack Hussein Obama which are not only failing us, but destroying us, are pitted against the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian constitutional republican principles of the Free Market, individual liberty, state's rights...it appears that Romney/Ryan is finding that support.

Look at this list and see how broad a spectrum they span and understand, that in today's world, with today's society, that span is necessary (again within those fundamental constraints) to decisively win and govern our nation.

List of Notable Endorsements for Romney/Ryan:
Sarah Palin
Rand Paul
Rick Santorum
Michelle Bachman
Herman Cain
Mitch McConnell
Darrell Issa
Mike Huckabee
John Bolton
Nancy Reagan
Jim Demint
John Lehman
Condoliza Rice
George Shultz
John Zununu
Geroge W. Bush
Bob McDonnell
Newt Gingrich
Rick Perry
Christine O'Donnell
Rudi Guliani
Dick Cheney
Nikki Hailey
John Mccain
Marco Rubio
Jeb Bush
John Portman
Paul Palenty
John Huntsman
Chris Christie

See the full list and their endorsement comments on the following page:
Critical Romney/Ryan Endorsements

Soros and Son

Posted Image

Goin' Negative

Posted Image

Obama Transparentcy

Posted Image

Soledad

Posted Image

You Feelin' me?

Posted Image

Nothing

Posted Image

So What?

Posted Image

Professional?

Posted Image

See?

Posted Image

FORWARD

Posted Image

More than a choice!

Posted Image

Why Ethanol Subsidies And Mandates Are A Bad Idea For America!

Political Realities ^ | 08/17/12 | LD Jackson

Someone needs to explain to me why we are still hyping ethanol as the savior of the economy and as the greatest energy product since sliced bread. I was reading a post by Country Thinker that already had me thinking about this. That was followed up by an article on Fox News. For years, the American taxpayer has been subsidizing ethanol, to the tune of about $6 billion each year. For those of you who don't understand what that really means, here is a translation. We have propped up an industry to make it profitable for those who are producing ethanol. After all, it is a clean energy solution and must be kept alive. I'll explain how untrue that is in a moment.
Supposedly, the $6 billion subsidy has expired, but it has been replaced by a mandate from the all-powerful Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are now requiring 37% of all corn grown in America to be used for ethanol. Need I explain why I feel this is another example of the EPA sticking their noses where they don't belong? These are the same people who want to regulate dust on farms, so this should be no surprise to anyone who is paying attention.
EthanolLet's look at the product that is called ethanol for a moment. Coming from someone who works in the automotive repair and service industry, I can tell you how bad ethanol really is. Maybe it does burn clean, but it is not efficient. Tests have proven it takes a larger amount of a greater octane ethanol to produce the same energy you can get out of a smaller amount of a lesser octane gasoline. Ethanol does not work as well as gasoline. Remember, this is a food product we are talking about.
Not only is ethanol less efficient than gasoline, it can also damage an engine. It is especially bad on small engines, such as a lawn mower, but it can also be bad for automobile engines. Yes, I know many of the new engines are supposedly built to run on fuel that can contain up to 85% ethanol, but that doesn't always work out. I can not count the times we have had a vehicle in our shop that was running like a two-legged dog and the culprit turned out to be too much ethanol.
Most of the stores that sell gasoline in our area have a sign on their pumps that tell the customer the fuel can contain as much as 10% ethanol. In reality, it has much more. Our technicians have performed tests on the vehicles in question and found them to be running on gasoline that contained larger amounts of ethanol. Care to guess what happens when we drain the fuel tank and refill it with fuel that has no ethanol? They run like a top. Keep in mind that these are vehicles that are supposedly designed to run on a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. The truth is, many vehicles do not run as designed on that mixture.
You may ask, how does all of this affect us as a country? Why is it bad for America? First, we have propped up an industry that produces a product that is not reliable and is very expensive. If left to itself, it would have never gotten off the ground. Instead, our government had to interfere and once again show themselves to be in the business of picking winners and losers. They have made the ethanol industry successful, when in fact, it is not.
Once that was accomplished, do you really believe the people who produce large amounts of ethanol are going to let it slip through their fingers? There are these people called lobbyists whose job it is to make sure that does not happen.
Indeed, ethanol mandates have won favor in the corn belt -- where corn prices and profits have set records in recent years. As evidence of that, more corn now goes to the production of ethanol than to the production of food and cattle and poultry feed. Many of those same corn belt states, including Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan, happen to be key swing states in the upcoming presidential election. Even if there were political will to challenge the mandates, the ethanol industry has now become an entrenched player in Washington.
"Once it's entrenched, you have a locked-in lobby that won't let you pry it out," Green said. "No matter that your environmental groups have walked away from it, international groups have walked away from it. Everybody has acknowledged it's bad public policy, but it's dug in like a tick."
Never mind that corn prices have went up 60% this summer. Never mind that this price increase is driving the price of food products that contain corn. Don't mention that corn is the main ingredient in the feed that is fed to the cattle, sheep, hogs, and chickens that many of us enjoy for supper. Do you suppose the high price of corn might have something to do with the high price of the meat? Does it not stand to reason that this is causing many families to have trouble making ends meet on their food budgets? This is a prime example of how government interference has trickled down to affect every American household. These effects are much larger and greater in scope than any of us realize. Instead of allowing free markets to rule, they have artificially driven up the price of a product that does not work. What happens if someone comes up with an energy product that is a good alternative to gasoline and ethanol? Remember those lobbyists I mentioned earlier? Do you believe for one moment that they will allow another product to cut into their profits? That is highly doubtful.
I say it is time to end all subsidies and mandates for ethanol and let it stand on its own two feet. If it fails, then so be it, but the American taxpayer should no longer prop it up.

Beer but no bumper cars as Obama magic slips in Iowa [Media Starting To Admit BO Sucks?]

Reuters ^ | 8/17/12 | Jeff Mason

- He avoids the State Fair bumper cars, speaks to smaller groups, and makes fewer promises than he did in 2008.

Four years after Iowa propelled President Barack Obama to the White House, he needs the state more than ever, but a tour through his old campaign stomping grounds this week revealed a much different political climate - and a much different candidate -- than the Iowa and the Obama of four years ago.

(Excerpt) Read more at in.mobile.reuters.com ...