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
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.
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.
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
"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 über 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?
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.
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.
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.
