Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Some Parts of Government Should Be Shut Down Forever!

Townhall.com ^ | October 8, 2013 | Daniel J. Mitchell

I realize we’re in the middle of a government shutdown and there’s a debt limit deadline rapidly approaching, but I’m not going to write about fiscal policy today.
Instead, I’m going to share a story about evil and stupid government policy. I guess you could say this is part of my why-decent-people-should-be-libertarian series. Previous editions – all of which highlight examples of innocent people having their lives turned upside down by the state – include these horror stories.
Now watch this powerful video from the Institute for Justice and see whether it’s also an example of heartless and oppressive government.
Feds Raid Family Grocery Store's Checking Account Over Innocent Bank Deposits
The answer – if you believe in fairness, decency, and the rule of law – is that this definitely belongs on that list. What the federal government has done to the Dehko family is utterly despicable and a horrifying episode of thievery.
Just as other examples of bureaucratic theft should get us upset.
In the case of the Dehko family, they got in trouble (notwithstanding the fact that they did nothing wrong) because of so-called anti-money laundering laws.
These laws were instituted beginning about 30 years ago based on the theory that we could lower crime rates by making it more difficult for crooks to utilize the financial system.
There’s nothing wrong with that approach, at least in theory. But as I explain in this video, these laws have become very expensive and intrusive, yet they’ve had no measurable impact on crime rates.
The Failure of Anti-Money Laundering Laws
As you might expect, politicians and bureaucrats have decided to double down on failure and they’re making anti-money laundering laws more onerous, imposing ever-higher costs in hopes of having some sort of positive impact. This is bad for banks, bad for the poor, and bad for the economy.
So we’ll see more people victimized, like the Dehko family.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this piece. At what point do well-meaning people connect the dots and conclude that government is a danger to liberty?
And when you draw this obvious conclusion, isn’t it time to become a libertarian?
This doesn’t mean you have to be a pot-smoking, Rand-quoting stereotype. Instead, it simply means that you have a healthy distrust of unlimited state power and you think individuals should have both the freedom and responsibility to manage their own lives.
To see where you stand, here are a couple of quizzes.
A just-for-the-fun-of-it quiz I put together involving pot, police cars, and a tractor.
A thorough quiz on libertarian purity.
Last but not least, if you decide to be a libertarian, I hope you can figure out how to make our cause more popular.

Obama OKs illegals’ march on Mall, still blocks Americans

The Daily Caller ^ | 10-7-2013 | Neil Munro

The National Park Service is allowing an Oct. 8 pro-immigration rally on the national mall, even as it posts pickets and barriers to bar Americans from visiting their open-air memorials.

“They’re going to be allowed to go [ahead] because it is a First Amendment activity,” Shannon Maurer, a spokeswoman for the “March for Immigrant Dignity and Respect,” told The Daily Caller.

“They allowed us to have it because it is part of the First Amendment of the constitution,” said Susana Flores, a spokeswoman for CASA in Action, which is organizing the rally. ”We’re going to have a stage and microphones,” plus a stand for TV cameras, she said.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Obama’s Cold War with Republicans

POLITISITE ^ | Colonel Steven B. Vitali USMC (Ret)

The nation is engulfed in an internal Cold War as Obama navigates America into a failing European Socialist State. Obama battles and offers no quarter to conservatives, the last bastion of citizens whose traditional views of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are affront to the progressive view of the US Constitution as a living, changing document.
For five years, Obama has bullied the Republican establishment into submission. Conservative patriots, aghast at our Republican leaders’ readiness to cave to Obama’s demands and provocations, have made their voices heard in Congress. Americans are outraged at Obama’s end runs around Congress and his irresponsibility as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in not carrying out the enforcement of all federal laws, not only the laws he agrees on.
Americans are becoming disillusioned with Congress and Obama. The poignant words of Patrick Henry come to mind: “Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?” After five long years of paralysis, the answer is no. We must stand and fight.
Pushing back against a deluge of establishment criticism, House conservatives remain united and are standing determined to force Obama into negotiations. The “Power of the Purse” resides constitutionally in the House of Representatives and refrains a President running ramrod over another co-equal branch of government.
After failing to defund Obamacare, the Republican controlled House offered bills to delay Obamacare for a year and to ensure Congress was not exempted from Obamacare requirements. Illegally, the government will now subsidize Congressmen and their staffs. Obama and Senator Reid would not consider any modifications to a clean Continuing Resolution (CR). The House began sending over individual appropriation bills to the Senate, as was the prior practice for a couple hundred years, but the Senate, under Reid, tabled the bills and would not allow the Senate to vote on them. Instead, Reid demanded that all 12 appropriation bills be consolidated and voted on without amendments.
Both Senator Reid and President Obama not only refused to negotiate with the House, but using vitriol, they branded Republicans as blackmailers, extortionist, and terrorists. Of course the lapdog liberal media parroted every talking point they made accusing the Republicans. The gulf between the two spheres of ideological governance is beyond reproach. The government stands in a partial (17%) shutdown, and the two sides have decided to make their stand as the next fiscal obstacle embraces them on 17 Oct, the nation’s “Debt Limit.”
In keeping with Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals, Obama stokes fear and anxiety in order to create perceived crises to advance his revolutionary, progressive agenda. Obama, aided by his cronies, are utilizing the government shutdown to inflict maximum pain on the American public and to arouse, anger and blame the Republican Congressional members. Obama’s actions are not in keeping with the solemnity and reverence of the esteem Presidential office. Obama’s broad smile and calm voice cloaks an arrogant and failure as a Presidential leader.
The country’s “Debt Limit” stands at close to $17 trillion dollars, yet Obama demands from Congress an open “credit card” without exception to continue his failed fiscal policies. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, tipped his hat by instructing his House colleagues that he would not let the nation default. If needed, Boehner would break the House Hastert Rule, and allow a majority of Democrat votes with a few Republican votes to pass a Debt Limit bill.
President Obama is confident that in the 11th hour, Boehner will succumb and Obama will be crowned victorious while severely damaging the prospects of House Republicans retaining control in the 2014 midterm election. That said, even during the shutdown, government takes in billions of dollars in revenue. A default occurs if you cannot pay the interest on the debt. $250 billion tax revenues are sufficient to pay off the approximate $30 billion in interest and to allow government to prioritize payments for other essential services.
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution forbids the government to default. Advocates of Obama argue that he can declare the 14th Amendment and arbitrarily raise the debt limit himself. Many rightly believe that Obama, having created a crisis, will invoke the 14th Amendment and raise the debt limit. The US Constitution does not grant Obama that authority, and Obama would create an unwise Constitutional crisis if he does so. Again, the “Power of the Purse” constitutionally resides in the House and not with a President.
Any Presidential accumulation and control of the nation’s purse would cause irrevocable consequences of the US Constitutional concept of co-equal branches of government drafted by our forefathers. Any irrational and imprudent move by Obama to arbitrarily raise the debt limit would be repudiated by a Supreme Court that would invalidate any of Obama’s unconstitutional actions as a result. In addition, the abuse of Presidential power would force the House of Representatives to draft Articles of Impeachment against the President.
The answer for the restoration of civility and governance for all America lies in the ability of Obama, Reid, and Boehner to faithfully negotiate and deliver a serious compromise addressing and correcting our spiraling out of control debt as practiced by statesmen throughout our nation’s history.
Our country cannot afford Obama’s uncontrollable spending beyond our taxable resources. Our political leaders owe it to future generations of Americans to refrain from Obama’s suicidal spending strategy. As for Obamacare, the, “you will have to wait to pass it before you can know what’s in it,” law remains a dagger in the heart of economic growth, individual liberty, and limited government.
Unfortunately, this writer believes that during the Debt Limit negotiations, Obama will give a bone to Speaker Boehner, who will then declare victory while surrendering the meat of the bone to Obama. Tic Toc, Tic Toc. The clock is running and so is the nation’s uncontrollable debt!

Obama sold voters bill of goods on health care!

With Obamacare, you'll do neither.




SFGate.com ^ | 10/7/13 | Debra J. Saunders 

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama sold his signature universal health care plan with the promise that it would "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

Now that the Affordable Care Act exchanges are open for business, voters are finding that the biggest problem with Obamacare isn't that some Web sites crashed last week but that the Obama promise of big savings for the average family was too good to be true.
Now that the exchanges are open for business, people who already have individual coverage have something new to not like: sticker shock. The Affordable Care Act isn't affordable after all.

Last week, I began hearing from readers whose individual policy premiums are going up, not down. A local architect sent me a notice he received from Kaiser informing him that his individual coverage will increase by $199.95 per month, or 78.9 percent. When he added his two sons, the percentage increase was even greater.

A freelance journalist told me she made $98,000 last year. But she and her retired husband, both 51, wouldn't pay $7,200 in premiums for high-deductible coverage. It's cheaper to pay the fine, she said. Besides, she added, "we're healthy."
A reader writes that her premiums will rise considerably, and she doesn't think she qualifies for a subsidy.

It is becoming increasingly clear that while poor working families will have access to their own health care policies at affordable rates - affordable, because they are subsidized - middle-class and affluent people stand to pay more. Forget that $2,500 savings.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

Tradition

alp6d3.jpg

RELAX

dh3bt1.jpg

No Compromise?

2yxkg40.gif

...except ObamaCare

2013-1002-BodyWork.jpg

Leadership

16hy55.gif

Have you tried "rebooting"?

ka4suw.png

Wealth

29giis3.jpg

The Launch

27470_image.gif

Credit Card Limits

27480_image.gif

Road Kill

29osrwk.jpg

Inflexible Republicans

27479_image.gif

UH OH!

27475_thumb.gif

Amazing

1379374_300998783374280_742260601_n.jpg

The Load

27473_thumb.gif

My Debt Limit

2q1zynn.gif

We're going die!

1237156_591388727574381_333090364_n.jpg

Hand Cranking?

138200_600.jpg

Obamacare Snake Oil

National Review Online ^ | October 8, 2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke

Don’t look now, but as Obamacare’s critics are focusing incessantly on the abortive rollout of the law’s health-care exchanges,the Left is moving the goalposts in the broader debate—and rather spectacularly, too.
[snip]
New York’s Jonathan Chait,meanwhile, chimed in with the rather amazing claim that “it is true—and nobody has ever denied this—that the hypothetical 25-year-old male will pay higher insurance premiums under Obamacare,” and then proceeded to explain that this was a net positive because,over the course of one’s life, the benefits one would reap from the system would outweigh the losses. Chait is,of course, entirely within his rights to argue this. But,again he is making a argument that is dramatically at odds with the one that Obama used to sell the law. Unless we are to conclude that words mean nothing in contemporary politics,this is a disaster.
Some alert and enterprising types have noticed that what was promised has not in fact come to pass. Republican House whip,Kevin McCarthy,has taken to reminding audiences that “when we started this health-care debate, the president led with a very big promise to the American people: If you like the health care that you have, that you currently have,you can keep it.” The Associated Press, coming better late than never to the world of fact-checking, observed in September:“McCarthy is correct,Obama said exactly that. It was an empty promise,made repeatedly.”
[snip]
At the beginning of his big health-care speech in Maryland yesterday, the president told the crowd that,as regards the “reforms that we are making to our health-care system,” “there’s been a lot of things said,a lot of misinformation, a lot of confusion.” He is right, of course. The debate has been mired in dishonesty and casuistry from the very start. And nobody has contributed to this with more enthusiasm and with a louder megaphone than Barack Obama himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Government Shutdown Highlights Government Waste!

Political Realities ^ | 10/08/13 | LD Jackson

I have long been a fan of Senator Tom Coburn and his work to showcase the government waste that is so prevalent in Washington, D.C. He isn't necessarily involved in this story, but it goes well with the work he has done. We know the government shutdown consists of non-essential government workers staying home until the Democrats decide to stop their ridiculous mantra of "we will not negotiate" and compromise with the Republicans to pass legislation to fund the federal government. But do you realize how many government workers are staying home? Since the federal government is the nation's largest employer, it is no surprise that the number is quite large. Some 800,000 workers are now sitting at home because of the Democrats refusal to negotiate.
While I do sympathize with their plight, back pay not withstanding, the government shutdown should serve as a mechanism to show us all just how bloated the federal government really is. Entire agencies have been shuttered because their employees are considered to be non-essential. Taken from Fox News, here are a few of the agencies that have exactly zero employees reporting for work as the government shutdown continues into its second week.
  • U.S. Commission of Fine Arts
  • U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
  • USDA Risk Management Agency - 430 employees
  • Federal Maritime Commission - 120 employees
  • Census Bureau - 15,641 employees
  • U.S. Economic Development Administration - 169 employees
  • Minority Business Development Agency - 49 employees
  • United States Department of Agriculture/Office of Ethics
  • United States Department of Agriculture/Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
  • United States Department of Agriculture/Office of the Chief Economist
Government WasteKnowing how big the federal government is, the 800,000 non-essential workers doesn't surprise me. We have entire government agencies that are useless in the grand scheme of what is supposed to be the federal government of the United States. Why do any of the above mentioned government agencies even exist, if their employees are non-essential? Why do we, the American taxpayer, continue to fund these agencies, when their work has nothing to do with our actual government.
There used to be a lot of talk about running the federal government like a corporation. While I believe that analogy is only partially true, it is something to think about. If the federal government conducted its business like a large corporation, it appears that cutbacks and layoffs would be in order. I believe they call it downsizing and that is exactly what our government needs. We spend a great deal of money on accomplishing nothing and then we all wonder why the government is broke. I would humbly suggest that if Washington had its house in order, biting the bullet and making the hard choice to remove the bloated agencies and their employees from the government payroll, then maybe we wouldn't be in the financial hole we are currently in.
I have no desire to see so many people lose their jobs. I realize it would be a terrible economic blow for them and the nation would suffer pain, as a result. However, if we continue down this path, the cliff to which we are headed is looking steeper every day. We have kicked this can down the same road for decades. Sooner or later, it is going to go off said cliff and when it does, the economic pain is going to be much worse than it would have been, had our government been able to rid itself of the wasteful spending we see highlighted in this government shutdown.
This may not be a popular topic, especially if you happen to be a government worker, but it is something that needs to be considered. Might I suggest they start with the GSA?

Move over Jimmy Carter, Obama has my vote for worst president -- EVER!

FoxNews.com ^ | 10/8/2013 | Michael Goodwin

America has had some great presidents, many mediocre ones and a few bad ones. But we’ve never had one like Barack Obama. He’s the first who thinks the job is beneath him.

He’s the first who turns political give-and-take into a crisis by refusing to negotiate with Congress.

He’s the first who thinks the way to more power is to inflict pain on ordinary people.
The move to barricade the World War II memorial reveals the mentality of a tin-pot dictator. The limited government shutdown did not need to affect the memorial because it is open 24 hours, without gates and often without guards.
But to turn public opinion in his favor, Obama’s goons trucked in barricades to keep out World War II vets and other visitors. By one estimate, the barricades and workers cost $100,000.
The same punish-the-people attitude led to shutdowns of other parks and historic sites that get no federal funding.
“We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting,” a Park Service ranger told The Washington Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Obama and the Art of the Artificial, Contrived and Transparent Crisis!

Townhall.com ^ | October 8, 2013 | John Ransom

I think that’s it’s safe to say that community organizing is a little bit easier than, say, being President of the United States. Or being a practicing attorney.

Barack Obama has now found that out.

To the sorrow of the rest of us.

And here’s the essential problem with Barack Obama’s resume, as opposed to, say, Abraham Lincoln’s, who also was unprepared to become president of the United States, but made up for it with ability: Obama has spent his whole life being against stuff, protesting against powers higher than himself, blaming those in control.
Lincoln on the other hand showed that he had rare executive ability. He may not have always gotten things done correctly, but he did get things done.
He was a constructive member of his community, and conservative in the sense that he sought to “conserve” liberty; even if his vision of liberty was radical for his time.
“Executive force and vigor are rare qualities,” Lincoln’s Secretary of State, and the man most likely to have been the Republican nominee were it not for Lincoln, William H. Seward, wrote in 1861.“The President is the best of us."
No one would say that about Obama. What he lacks in ability he compensates for in ignorance of the real world with temper tantrums and demands and discord.
That works as a community organizer, but doesn’t work for the man-who-would-be-president.
Lincoln was often let down by the incompetence of those around him, the generals, the politicians and the reformers to whom he had to listen to govern successfully. Obama, on the other hand, continues to let down the generals and the politicians and the reformers -- even those people he’s closely allied with-- in his attempt to govern without them.
Presidents negotiate. Until Obama, all of them have.
Before being sworn into office, Lincoln, in a stop in Cleveland, complained about an “artificial crisis” that was being forced upon him by others:
Frequent allusion is made to the excitement at present existing in our national politics, and it is as well that I should also allude to it here. I think that there is no occasion for any excitement. The crisis, as it is called, is altogether an artificial crisis. In all parts of the nation there are differences of opinion on politics. There are differences of opinion even here. You did not all vote for the person who now addresses you. What is happening now will not hurt those who are further away from here. Have they not all their rights now as they ever have had? Do they not have their fugitive slaves returned now as ever? Have they not the same Constitution that they have lived under for seventy odd years? Have they not a position as citizens of this common country, and have we any power to change that position? [Cries of "No."] What then is the matter with them? Why all this excitement? Why all these complaints? As I said before, this crisis is all artificial! It has no foundation in fact.
Despite this, Lincoln still sent people to negotiate with those who would secede.
By contrast, it would be impossible to find any words written by anyone to better describe the policy of the Obama administration than the description of today’s crisis creators used by Abraham Lincoln. Obama talked a lot about transparency when running in '08. We just didn't know he meant he would run the most transparently political and opportunistic government ever.
Obama has assumed powers, without let by Congress, far above those legally allowed a president.
Executive authority, in short, is out of control.
“The president has inherent emergency powers,” said Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor, recently. “It has long been understood that the president should act to protect the country.”
While the White House, for now, is publicly rejecting that interpretation in the case of the debt ceiling, no doubt they will trot it out when convenient at some other time when they wish to act in their best interest, politically.
Like, for example, when they need to stop something or start something with Obamacare.
It’s true that Lincoln too had his own problems with executive authority. But yet one can, in good conscience, make the case that Lincoln was engaged in a great civil war, which is inherently an emergency.
While often wrong, Lincoln’s use of war powers was at least defensible.
Obama’s emergency, however, is inherently artificial, gotten up out theories and deconstruction and relativism that says that taxpayers protesting the obligation to pay for birth control out of the public purse is a War on Women, while arresting Catholic chaplains for saying Mass during a government shutdown is a legal imperative.
From the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Service:
There is a chronic shortage of active duty Catholic chaplains. While roughly 25% of the military is Catholic, Catholic priests make up only about 8% of the chaplain corps. That means approximately 275,000 men and women in uniform, and their families, are served by only 234 active-duty priests.The temporary solution to this shortage is to provide GS and contract priests.These men are employed by the government to ensure that a priest is available when an active duty Catholic Chaplain is not present.With the government shutdown, GS and contract priests who minister to Catholics on military bases worldwide are not permitted to work – not even to volunteer.During the shutdown, it is illegal for them to minister on base and they risk being arrested if they attempt to do so.
This is the latest outrage, but it’s hardly the only one.
There have been several occasions when members of the president’s party, if not his government, have talked about the country as if we are engaged in a civil war.
In 2011, the governor of North Carolina, Bev Perdue (D-Defeated) suggested that elections be suspended.
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years,” said Perdue according to the Raleigh News and Observer, “and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”
Just two weeks later then-Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D-BiPolar) in an interview with the Daily Caller, called on the president to declare an emergency and give every unemployed person a job without congressional authorization: “I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson told the Daily Caller. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
Actually the Congress is functioning just like it was meant to. It’s acting as a brake on runaway, revolutionary, out-of-control government.
Obama is functioning just the way he was meant to too: as a community organizer... but not, of course, as the president of the United Sates of America.
He lacks the training, the resume and the temperment.

Bachmann on 10,535 Obamacare Reg Pages: 'It's Horrifying!' Like a 'Stephen King Novel'

CNS News ^ | 10/7/2013 | Penny Starr

CNSNews.com) – When asked Friday on Capitol Hill about the 10,535 pages of final regulations that have been published in the Federal Register for implementing Obamacare, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) likened them to science fiction.
“Well, I think it’s probably analogous to a Stephen King novel, you know, it’s horrifying once they read what these regulations are,” she said.
CNSNews.com told Bachmann that it has been asking representatives and senators who voted for the health care law if they had read all 10,535 regulations. CNSNews.com: “I’ve been asking Obama supporters – Obamacare supporters – which of course are Democrats – about the 10,535 pages of final regulations published in the Federal Register, and I’ve been asking ‘Have you read all those regulations?’ And, of course, they either don’t want to answer me or … “ Bachmann: “They keep churning them out every 10 seconds -- they can’t keep up with them.”
CNSNews.com: “That’s right. So would you answer that yes or no question and tell me why? Bachmann: “Why don’t they won’t read the regulations?” CNSNews.com: “Right, right.” Bachmann: “Well, I think it’s probably analogous to a Stephen King novel, you know, it’s horrifying once they read what these regulations are.”
Since March 2010, when President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and its companion Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), various federal agencies have published in the Federal Register 110 final regulations governing how Obamacare will be implemented. These regulations add up to 10,535 pages in the Federal Register—or more than eight times as many pages as there are in the Gutenberg Bible, which has 642 two-sided leaves or 1,286 pages.

YGBSM! ( "You Gotta Be Shittin' Me".)

This is a perfect example of what happens when you put inexperienced
people in responsible positions and who selects Czars who are equally
inexperienced.


Air Force expert on Benghazi
"Hands" Handley is a well-respected USAF fighter pilot.
Here is his short resume of accomplishments.
Colonel Phil "Hands" Handley is credited with the highest speed air-
to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally for
all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre,
F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules.
Additionally, he flew 275 combat missions during two tours in Southeast
Asia in the F- 4D and F-4E.
His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the
Silver Star.

Here is what Col. Handley wrote in response to Panetta and Dempsey's
claims there was no time to send help to Benghazi.
----------------------------------------------
May 30, 2013

Betrayal in Benghazi

Phil "Hands" Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

The combat code of the US Military is that we don't abandon our dead or
wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don't
run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still
alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or
die trying.

Among America 's fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an
irrevocable bond exists is priceless.
Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that
has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who
fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of
dereliction-of-duty.

Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in
the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President
and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi .
The White House strategy, with the aid of a "lap dog" press has been to
run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.
The recent testimonies of the three "whistle blowers" have reopened the
subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those
responsible for this embarrassing debacle.
It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is
counting on is the contention "that there were simply no military assets
that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference" mainly due to
the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.

This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed "experts" the
Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was
half-way around the world, you don't just sit on your penguin ass and do
nothing.

The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but
as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.

Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local):
When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens
informing him "Greg, we are under attack!" (his last words), Hicks
immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate
initiation of an existing "Emergency Response Plan."

At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is
told to "stand down".
By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live
feed to various "Command and Control Agencies" so everyone watching that
feed knew damn well what was going on.

At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in
Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the
attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a
mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker
support really "was not available" what about this:

When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air
Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the
launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to
prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred
20 MM rounds are airborne.
Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS
Sigonella in 1.08 hours.
While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation,
rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377
nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM
which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their
team.

Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full
afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its
tracks, a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would
assuredly do the trick.

Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to return to Sigonella after
jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli
International Airport, only one-half hour away.

As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances,
border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political
correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act -- screw them. It is
time our "leadership" get its priorities straight and put America's
interests first.

The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive.
Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with "72 virgins"
and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS
terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a
good idea to "tug" on Superman's cape.

Of course all this depends upon a Commander In Chief more concerned with
saving the lives of those he put in harm's way than getting his crew
rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day.
It also depends upon a Secretary of State who actually understood "What
difference did it make?", and a Secretary of Defense who was watching the
feed from the drone and understood what the attack consisted of instead of
making an immediate response that "One of the military tenants is that you
don't commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation."

YGBSM! ( "You Gotta Be Shittin' Me".)

Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand
down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from
office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat
forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does
"have their back" when
the chips are down.



FOR THOSE OF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN THE TIME TO READ THIS, DO ONE THING
FOR ME AND FORWARD IT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!! TO AVOID THIS HAPPENING
AGAIN, WHOMEVER GAVE THE "STAND DOWN" ORDER NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED!!!!

Handle it...!!!