Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Now Iran warns secret U.S. bases will be hit

'Should Israel attack, those will be targets'

Six American military bases in Israel will be destroyed by Iranian missiles should Israel attack Iranian nuclear facilities, the Islamic regime is warning the United States.

“America has several secret military bases in different areas of the occupied Palestinian territory (Israel) at which it houses ammunition, smart bombs, missiles and other military armaments,” Basij News, the official outlet of the Iranian Basij forces, reported Tuesday, quoting an Iranian diplomat in an interview with the Arabian media outlet Al Moheet.

“Also, a 500-bed hospital is located in one of these bases. … Should Israel attack Iran, then surely those bases will become the targets for Iranian missiles.”

The unnamed diplomat said one of the bases is in the western part of the city of Herzliya, another is within Ben Gurion Airport, and other bases are inside the Israeli Air Force bases of Ovda and Nevatim. The diplomat said the value of the U.S. military armaments at these bases exceeds $1 billion.

“American military bases in the occupied territories are considered secret and most of them are underground,” the diplomat said. “These bases are known by codes ‘Base 51,’ which houses ammunition, ‘Base 53,’ which is located in an Israeli Air Force base, ‘Base 54′ is a hospital close to Tel Aviv used in emergency situations, and bases ’55′ and ’56′ are used as ammunition and armaments reserves,” he said.

The diplomat said another base is in the West Bank, built by a German company to house American armaments.

The Basij report said Israel provides security and military support for the estimated 150 American military supervisors at the bases.

As reported by the Washington Times last December, the Revolutionary Guards had warned that any U.S. involvement in an attack on Iran would result in a missile attack on all U.S. bases in the region and terrorist attacks on U.S. interests worldwide, including in America. However, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had earlier announced that should America stay out of any conflict with Iran, it will be safe.

The Basij report, however, directly warns America that even should it not militarily support an attack by Israel, its military bases within the Jewish state will be targeted.

Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi described Israel’s Jewish community as “vulnerable.” Fars News Agency quoted the special adviser to the supreme leader as saying, “The Zionists are living in such international conditions that if they intend to launch an attack against Iran, one million Jews will flee Israel in the first one or two weeks. Jews are very vulnerable there.”

Safavi, the former chief commander of the Revolutionary Guards, last week had said, “All signs in the region point to the disintegration of the superfluous fake Zionist regime and its removal from the face of the geography of the region,” according to Sepah News, the Guards media outlet.

In analyzing the Arab Spring, Safavi said, “Without a doubt, the north African region and southwestern Asia are in a historic political path that will affect geopolitics – meaning that the governments of dictators and monarchs dependent on big powers are being changed where people are empowered and in control of their own political destiny.”

Safavi said the United States spent billions of dollars on the nine-year Iraq war and suffered 5,000 deaths and many more injured but failed to put in place in Baghdad an anti-Iran government it liked.

In Afghanistan, he said, after a decade of fighting, America and its allies face the same fate as the Soviet Union’s Red Army in the 1980s and will be forced to flee.

“America’s support of Israel will increase the hatred by the Islamic nations and it will be costly for the Americans,” Safavi said. “The path of Allah promises Muslims victory over the infidel Zionists.”

Obama's 2nd-term assault on U.S. military

Drastic slashes in defense at time of escalating world tensions

NEW YORK – During a time of escalating world tensions, it is generally considered unwise to reduce U.S. military preparedness.

With Iran racing toward nuclear-weapons capability, Syria on the brink of all-out civil war and Russia rebuilding its Cold War-era bases in the Middle East, now would be the time for any president to push for increased funding for U.S. forces.

Instead President Obama’s plans for military cuts, should he win a second term, make his drastic first-term defense slashes – about the only area in which he’s reduced government spending – look like child’s play.
A handful of key progressive organizations behind much of Obama’s first-term agenda have now submitted even more radical proposals to the White House to “transform” the U.S. military.

If these progressive groups have their way, U.S. armed forces will be reduced to a social work-style organization designed to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and increase “peacekeeping” forces worldwide. The massive, second-term slashes to the military budget are to be used, shockingly, to invest in a defense posture based on “sustainable energy” and fighting worldwide climate change. There is also a plan to wrest control of the military budget from Congress.

This progressive wish list matters because Obama’s first-term agenda did not materialize out of thin air. The president’s signature policies – including his first-term defense cutbacks, the $800 billion “stimulus” and even Obamacare – were crafted over years by the same major progressive organizations and activists now hard at work planning Obama’s second-term strategy on jobs, wages, health care, immigration, electoral “reform” – and national defense.

Two of the progressive think tanks – the Center for American Progress, or CAP, and the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS – have produced a 96-page blueprint called “A Report of the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the United States” (or 2012 Unified Security Budget). Previous recommendations from the CAP-IPS annual Unified Security Budget have been adopted by the Obama administration.

CAP – which is run by John Podesta, a former aide to Bill Clinton and co-chairman of President Obama’s 2008 White House transition team – has had such heavy influence on the crafting of White House policy that Time magazine dubbed it the “idea factory” of the Obama administration.

In fact, the 2011 Unified Security Budget openly boasts that the group’s policy recommendations from its recent defense papers were utilized by Obama’s Sustainable Defense Taskforce, which has notoriously recommended $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years.

The 2012 USB opposes the use of forces on the ground to secure or influence the longer-term strategic position of other nations. It recommends scaling back all U.S. ground forces by 20 percent; reducing the Navy’s surface fleet by 20 percent – including two carriers and carrier combat air wings; and reducing the Air Force by two combat air wings. At the same time, it would cut standing peacetime overseas deployments in Europe and East Asia by up to 50,000 troops.

The Unified Security Budget authors strongly argue for the reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 292 deployed nuclear weapons and the complete elimination of the Trident II nuclear missile. Obama has already initiated this process by signing a deal with Russia in April 2010 reducing stocks of weapons-grade plutonium.

The accord with Russia was signed at a nuclear summit in Washington arranged by Obama at which leaders of 47 nations (not including Iran or North Korea, the two biggest nuclear proliferators) committed to reducing the world’s nuclear stockpiles. One week earlier, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, committing both countries to reducing their deployed nuclear arsenals.

Obama had broadly proclaimed his disarmament intentions during a 2007 campaign speech.

“Here’s what I’ll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,” he said.

By 2010, as president, he argued, “We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union – a country that doesn’t exist.”

The joint CAP and IPS report, meanwhile, recommends the U.S. cease all further development of missile defenses. The report goes through a list of current missile defense programs, including Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptors– pushing for all programs to be cut.

The military’s vital Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation program is to be cut by $10 billion across the board.

Next on the chopping block: the complete cancellation of the second SSN-744 Virginia Class submarine.

Similarly targeted for cancellation are the V-22 Osprey helicopter and the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The 2012 Unified report does advocate a massive increase in one area – any spending that funds “alternative energy” or that focuses Defense Department resources on combating “climate change as a security threat.”

The report’s authors recommend investing “the lion’s share” of the few allotted military increases in addressing the “threat” of so-called climate change. The progressive groups are also pushing Obama to take billions of dollars from the U.S. military and instead use the funds for a “green stimulus.”

These groups envision the military as a tool to fight so-called global warming. In 2011, the IPS released a 40-page CAP-endorsed report titled “The Green Dividend,” a term the IPS defines as “a major shift of resources from the military budget to sustainable energy.”

The IPS paper identifies the Pentagon as the “largest institutional energy user – and greenhouse gas emitter – on the planet,” arguing that if it undertook a “crash program” to convert to renewable energy sources and clean vehicles, it could make a significant impact on global emissions.

The IPS calls on the Pentagon to contribute to a green world “by simply getting out of the way, by handing over unneeded military installations to be converted into green job incubators.”

For now, congressional oversight serves as a check to some of Obama’s most drastic calls for defense reductions. Some would even give Congress more power in this realm. But the progressive groups have concocted a plan to wrest budgetary control from Congress altogether – where it is vested by the U.S. Constitution – and instead place the military’s purse strings in the hands of an “independent panel.”

Would American voters support Obama if they knew what he has in store should he win a second term?

Apparently the president himself doesn’t think so. As he told Russian Prime Minister Medvedev when he thought no one was listening: “Tell Vladimir (Putin) after I’m re-elected I’ll have more flexibility.”

Somebody Should Tell Politicians that the Military Budget is for National Defense, not Pork and Political Correctness 

By: Daniel J. Mitchell  / / Finance

 I agree with George Will that it’s okay to reduce Pentagon spending. After all, the United States accounts for almost one-half of the world’s military outlays, about twice as much as the combined total of possible enemies.
But I also agree that national defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government, so I want to make sure we get the most bang for the buck (no pun intended) from every penny.

That’s why I get especially irritated when I read horror stories about Pentagon waste.

But in many cases, it’s not the fault of the Generals and Admirals. America’s military is forced to waste money because the politicians in Washington are motivated by cronyism, corruption, pork, and political correctness.

For example, let’s look at an excerpt from a column in the Washington Examiner.
Imagine you’re a legislator in a country with a bloated budget of almost $4 trillion and a record level of spending that requires massive deficits and could mean job-killing tax increases. Now imagine you’ve got a weapons program that is billions over budget, a decade behind schedule and unwanted even by those for whom it is intended. What would you do? If you said, “Earmark the program another $380 million,” you’re apparently qualified to serve on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. The weapons program is the Medium Extended Air Defense System, a joint venture with Germany and Italy that was zeroed out by three of four relevant congressional funding authorities. But the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense decided the program was worth a $380 million earmark, and the full committee passed the final bill along with a unanimous vote.
I’m not an expert on weapons systems. Heck, I know less about such matters than Obama’s cabinet knows about the economy. But it certainly seems foolish to throw good money after bad on a program that doesn’t work. Especially when the military doesn’t want it!

And here are a couple of sentences from a Forbes column about part of the military budget being diverted to subsidize solar power.
EPA regional headquarters?
The U.S. Army is looking for a few good renewable energy projects. Some $7 billion worth. On Tuesday the Army began accepting bids for green energy installations that will be deployed on military bases and facilities across the U.S. The Army will sign contracts to buy the electricity generated by solar, wind, geothermal and biomass projects for up to 30 years. …The program is part of a Department of Defense initiative to meet at least 25% of energy demand on its bases from renewable sources by 2025. The military is also aiming its bases to become “net zero” consumers of electricity – generating more power than they use by installing solar and other renewable energy systems.
Silly me. I thought the Pentagon was responsible for keeping the nation safe. I guess I missed the memo where it was tasked with being a tool for the green agenda.

These examples doubtlessly are just the tip of the iceberg. Politicians can’t resist turning anything they touch into a vehicle for graft, waste, and foolishness.

To be sure, there are also big picture issues of national security that have to be resolved. Is NATO now an anachronism, as Steve Chapman persuasively argues? Is overseas intervention a pointless exercise, as Mark Steyn explains?

But whatever the mission, the Pentagon’s ability to carry it out is compromised when politicians treat the military budget like a goodie bag.

Paul Ryan Could Make History By Resolving Reagan's Regret 

By: Ralph Benko  / / Finance

Paul Ryan Could Make History By Resolving Reagan's Regret
"I’ve been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one.” — Ronald Reagan’s farewell address.
When Ronald Reagan was elected president the Dow Jones Industrial Average hovered around 1,000 (less than 2,800 inflation adjusted) — and had dipped, under President Carter, as low as 759. Unemployment stood at an unacceptable 7+%. The Soviet Union was aggressive, bellicose, and, in the eyes of the Western policy elite, could be but contained, not challenged. At the end of Reagan’s eight years in office, the Dow had tripled in value, on its way much higher. Job growth was vibrant. The USSR was well on its way to dissolution.

How did this happen? Rep. Jack Kemp and his team of visionary economists and policy advocates inspired what became known as “the Supply-Side Revolution”. The “cabal,” as it was then known, pressed for a fundamental policy transformation away from high tax rates (70%) and easy money (13+% inflation) to low marginal tax rates and good money. They faced enormous ridicule by the policy elites, being mocked by, among others, Reagan’s foremost rival for the presidency, George H.W. Bush, who derided the modern Classical economic thinkers as practitioners of “voodoo economics.”

Ronald Reagan, adopting the Kemp formula, had a lot on his plate. While restoring economic growth and confronting the expansion-minded totalitarian Soviets, something got left behind: cutting federal spending and thereby balancing the budget. It is this unfinished business which Rep. Paul Ryan, rising to Congressional Budget Committee chairman and now Vice Presidential nominee-designate, took on as his Quest.

The fundamental things don’t change as time goes by. The great anti-federal-profligacy hawk within the original group of Kemp advisers was Lewis Lehrman. According to Evans and Novak’s book on this era, The Reagan Revolution (Dutton, 1981, p. 118), “Lewis Lehrman… disagreed fundamentally with his friends Laffer and Wanniski on the budgetary question. Lehrman believed dramatic and drastic expenditures reduction was no less imperative than tax reduction, rejecting Kemp’s notion of greater priority for the latter.”

Lehrman, described by Kemp adviser and author of The Way the World Works Jude Wanniski, as a 42-year old “financial wizard”, wrote a key transition memo for president-elect Reagan and his team:
The previous administration sewed chaos, and, I regret to say, President-elect Reagan may very well reap the whirlwind. If he is not ready, if he does not understand what is happening, he could easily be swept away by its hurricane velocity. The extraordinary coincidence is that these were very much the same conditions which greeted Margaret Thatcher when she inherited the whirlwind from her predecessors — the big spending socialists. I might add that these were the very same conditions that caused the collapse of the Fourth Republic in France in 1958. Except that President DeGaulle understood the causes of collapse. The Fifth Republic, his creation, was born amidst his program for currency stability, budgetary equilibrium, and economic renewal and growth . . . 
The following policies must be presented to the President-elect. …
1) His administration must move much more rapidly than originally planned to establish budgetary equilibrium in the federal government.
2) The budgetary policy must be concerted with Federal Reserve monetary policy in a planned and coherent way. This coherence has been lacking in every economic and monetary program with the goal of stabilization in the past 20 years.
Reagan, focusing on cutting tax rates and confronting Soviet totalitarianism, certainly had his priorities straight. But ignoring Lehrman’s advice left him with a regret: the deficit. In selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate, Gov. Romney has selected a soulful and charismatic young man who is committed to tackling one of these two major unfinished aspects of the Reagan Revolution. To bring about both growth and spending restraint, however, will require achieving both key elements of Reagan’s incomplete agenda, including monetary reform.

Shortly after Rep. Paul Ryan first released his “Roadmap” last year Lehrman, the eminence grise of the classical gold standard, published a column in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Monetary Reform The Key to Spending Restraint” :
No man in America is a match for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on the federal budget. No congressman in my lifetime has been more determined to cut government spending. No one is better informed for the task he has set himself. Nor has anyone developed a more comprehensive plan to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, the federal budget deficit …. But experience and the operations of the Federal Reserve system compel me to predict that Mr. Ryan’s heroic efforts to balance the budget by 2015 without raising taxes will not end in success—even with a Republican majority in both Houses and a Republican president in 2012.

The problem is simple. Because of the official reserve currency status of the dollar, combined with discretionary new Federal Reserve and foreign central bank credit, the federal government is always able to finance the Treasury deficit, even though net national savings are insufficient for the purpose.

This monetary reform would provide an indispensable restraint, not only on the Federal Reserve, but also on the global banking system—based as the system now is on the dollar standard and foreign official dollar reserves. Establishing dollar convertibility to a weight unit of gold, and ending the dollar’s reserve currency role…would also prevent access to unlimited Fed credit by which to finance ever-growing government.
One of the key distinctions between conservatives and liberals today is over monetary policy. The GOP, with full support of its movement conservative base, of tea partiers, of libertarians, the supply-siders, and of public intellectuals such as Lehrman(whose institute this writer is professionally associated), Dean Glenn Hubbard and Prof. John Taylor, have united around the imperative, for restoring prosperity, of a rules-based monetary policy. The Democrats, supported by its liberal base and by public intellectuals such as Paul Krugman, advocate a policy of discretionary activism. Both groups cannot be right.

America’s economy thrived, under Reagan and Clinton, creating millions of jobs per month, rather than per year, under what is known, monetarily, as the “great moderation.” Thus there can be no mistaking the key importance of monetary policy in restarting the economy and generating jobs. Yet central planning of monetary policy by a Gosplan of 12 Federal Reserve governors, however brilliant and well intended, is inherently defective and will come, as it came, a cropper. Bad money was the proximate cause of the Great Recession and lingering 8% unemployment.

A crucial debate between monetary policy proponents is ongoing within the GOP. The discussion is whether to adopt a price rule, as favored by academic economists, or the golden rule as favored by Lehrman, by Forbes Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Steve Forbes, by financier/philanthropist Sean Fieler (and the American Principles Project, which Fieler chairs, with which this writer is professionally associated), by incoming Cato president John Allison, by former CEO and presidential aspirant Herman Cain, by Atlas Foundation’s Judy Shelton, and is looked with favor upon by Weekly Standard editor (and Ryan devotee) William Kristol, among many, many others.

Without diminishing the importance of tax, spending, and regulatory policy, if Romney wins his administration’s getting monetary policy exactly right will prove the determining factor in restoring vibrant economic growth as well as ending federal profligacy. If a President Romney and Vice President Ryan do not wish to court a similar pang of regret upon departure from office as that suffered by the great Reagan it is essential to take seriously that golden option.

4% growth — promised by Gov. Romney — never has been sustained — not even under Reagan or Clinton — for sustained periods under a fiduciary money such as Federal Reserve Notes. History demonstrates that sustained 4% growth is achievable, uniquely, through the classical gold standard. Paul Ryan: history beckons you to help Team Romney complete not one but both movements of Reagan’s Unfinished Symphony in order to achieve the object of your Quest: prosperity and an end to federal profligacy.

Democrat Long Knives Come Out For Wasserman Schultz

By Javier Manjarres
There has been a lot of talk of late about why Democrat National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is considered to be ‘Kryptonite’ to President Obama because of her abrasiveness in the pursuit of her hyper-partisan agenda.

Her own Democrat Party hacks are now saying that she comes across as “too partisan” during her media appearances, and yet these are the same people who gave us Barack Obama and continue to promote their very partisan agenda and radical ideology.  

So why are they now going after Debbie?

Ahhhh, it sounds like there’s a lot of desperation and despair over at the DNC. And when you’re desperate, the scapegoating begins- and now it appears that the DNC Chairwoman is the target.  This was not unexpected once the political climate for Obama started its downward turn from gloomy to downright dire.

Early this year, we broke the story that Congresswoman/DNC Chair was “not the first choice” to be the DNC chairwoman and that the congresswoman just about strong-armed lobbying of President Obama who essentially selected her for the position, which the Shark Tank learned from a high-ranking member of Team Obama.

But Wasserman Schultz quickly fell out of favor with the President, prompting him to directly tell her, “Don’t forget, you work for me.”
It seems as if the relationship has soured to the point that according to the source, “He does not want her in the DNC anymore.”
Apparently, President Obama had discussions with the DNC Chairwoman regarding her approach, even telling her, “Don’t forget you work for me.”
It’s not about you, its about me. – attributed to President Barack Obama to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as per our source
The problem that the President has is this- he can’t fire her, at least at this juncture.  If President Obama were to remove Wasserman Schultz from her post he would be weakening his own position, as it would be very hard to find someone that is both in lock-step with his agenda and willing to run cover for him as she has done.
Second, this would be a clear indication to the public that there are real problems within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party. (Source-Obama-”Don’t forget, you work for me”)
Subsequent to that report, the Shark Tank learned from the same source that DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz was indeed being “booted” from her position once the November elections were over- this after we floated this idea back in April of this year-
According to our source within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz, the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC  regardless if President Obama wins re-election or not.
This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage a press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career. (Source-DWS Getting Booted from DNC)
So what gives with the Democrats?  They chose Wasserman Schultz because of her “party ├╝ber alles” approach and her over-the-top rhetoric simply because they were in need someone to advance the political narrative and agenda they chose to pursue, facts be damned.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz walked lock-step with President Obama and truly believes in President Obama’s odious vision for America.

So while I don’t share or support one iota of Wasserman Schultz’s partisan agenda, she has done her best to promote the unpopular agenda they assigned her to be the spokesperson for- the only way possible to promote such an extreme agenda.

They Won't Stand For The Truth And Demand That Barack Obama Produce A Valid Birth Certificate, But They'll Play Along With Harry Reid's Fabrication And Demand That Mitt Romney Release Additional Tax Returns.

      After making an outlandish accusation that Romney hadn't paid any taxes in 10 years, Harry Reid actually had the audacity and unmitigated gall to demand that Mitt Romney prove himself innocent of the fabricated charge.

      But... hold on just a minute. It gets better. Days later, CNN ran the following headline: "Reid Puts GOP In Bind Over Romney's Taxes." The CNN article went on to state: "Republican sources say they're in a Catch-22 situation on how to reply to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's claims...."

      Excuse us? ... Don't know "how to reply?" ... Well... here's an idea for these Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only: Set your rank cowardice aside. Grow a spine and finally start doing what you should have had the courage to do long ago.

      Now... we'll leave partisan politics up to the politicians because there is a broader point to be made.  WHY DO SELF-PROCLAIMED CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS LACK THE COURAGE TO STAND FOR THE TRUTH, WHEN BARACK OBAMA'S MINIONS HAVE THE COURAGE TO LIE?

      The cowardice stops today, since Harry Reid started the ball rolling,  we're telling them to turn the tables and demand that Barack Obama produce the records that they should have demanded that he produce all along, and prove, once and for all, to the American people that he is not a fraud and a usurper

And You Already Know What We Mean By Records.

     Let's be frank. Let's lay everything on the table. Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell and the rest of the so-called Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only have refused to demand that Barack Obama prove that he is not a fraud and a usurper for far too long.

      And now that Harry Reid has rather ironically shown them the way and set the standard, they have no excuse not to act. They should not hesitate to do in defense of the TRUTH what Harry Reid is all too willing to do to perpetuate a LIE.

How about demanding, for starters, that the Great Usurper, Barack Hussein Obama, produce a birth certificate that is not a "computer-generated forgery" and prove to the American people that he's eligible to hold the office he present "occupies" once and for all?"

How about demanding that Mr. Obama produce some of those sealed college records and prove that he didn't receive financial aid as a foreign exchange student?

How about demanding that Mr. Obama explain why 16 different Social Security numbers are linked to his name?

How about demanding that Mr. Obama explain the "irregularities" in the Selective Service Registration form he released to the American people?

How about demanding that Mr. Obama explain to the American people why he actively publicized that he was foreign-born from 1991 up until the time he ran for President of the United States?

     When it became clear that Barack Obama may not even be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States... when it became clear that something didn't smell right about his fishy birth certificate, these Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only sent the American people an implied but clear message:

Well yes, we know Obama's probably not eligible to be President of the Unites States and is probably holding his office fraudulently... we know he's violated the Constitution and the laws he swore to uphold on too many occasions to count... we know he's usurped the power of the Congress and the courts, but just don't talk about it... we don't want CNN's Anderson Cooper or CBS's Katie Couric or NBC's Brian Williams to say that we're acting silly.'

      But now that Harry Reid is making silly accusations, they stand dumb-founded, so petrified by their cowardice that they're hesitant to do anything.

      Harry Reid doesn't have that problem. No accusation is too slanderous, no statement is too ludicrous and no law is too sacrosanct or inviolable when it comes to pushing an extreme agenda down the throats of the American people.

      It's high time that these Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only get their heads into the game, and it's high time for us to disabuse them of the foolish notion that it is the DUTY of the American people to simply vote THEM into office.

      Oh no, it's their responsibility to show the American people why THEY deserve OUR votes. It's their duty to show the American people that they have the courage and determination to lead, and they can start showing they are worthy of the power that we, the American people, may choose to temporarily bestow upon them, by coming out from behind their desks and standing up to this tyrannical and lawless Obama Regime.

You Won't Be The First To Send The Message, But When You Send The Message, They Will Listen.

     Even Donald Trump figured it out. Trump even went on television to deliver a message, hoping our Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only would get the hint.

      Practically winking until he wore out the muscles in his eyelids, Trump challenged Barack Obama to release his sealed records in exchange for additional tax returns from Mitt Romney. He said it would be “a wonderful trade.”

      But these Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only didn't get it, just as they didn't get it when Trump showed them, over a year ago, that a man could demand Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate and rise to the top of the presidential polls.

      And Trump didn't stop by demanding that Obama produce a birth certificate that's not a "computer-generated forgery." He demanded just about everything: “I’d like to see his college records. I’d like to see his college applications. I’d like to see something about his past, which many people know nothing about. I’d like to see his passport records, which are sealed."

      He went on to say, "if Obama gives some of his sealed records where all of this money has been spent to keep them sealed, I would certainly make that trade. I think that’s a great trade. ... I think you would find some things that are very, very interesting and very shocking.”

      And Trump is not alone. Wayne Allyn Root, Obama's classmate at Columbia University (Class of 1983) says: "If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses. It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff."

      Root goes on to say: "I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then - Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia has ever met him, saw him, or heard of him."

      And Root goes so far as to say what we may find if Republicans push the issue and force Obama to unseal his college records:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

      If Root is wrong, let Obama prove him wrong. If Obama continues to obstruct, then continue to press. It's a sound strategy. It even works when the accusations are simply made-up out of thin air. Just ask Harry Reid.

      But don't count on these Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only to listen to Donald Trump or Wayne Allyn Root. As you've prove time after time, they listen to numbers... and only when enough of us make our voice heard, they do indeed listen to you.

Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every one of the Members of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.