Lost But Now He Is Found, Poor Drunk Uncle Omar Obama

Corruption and Lies seem to be a tradition in the Obama family.

Every family has a “Black Sheep,” someone who embarrasses the family by getting drunk and in trouble. It’s possible some of us have relatives who are illegal aliens on the public dole and have repeatedly defied deportation orders: thankfully, not many of us fit into that category. However, not many drunk relatives tell arresting officers to call the White House, presumably before they do something stupid.

“Omar” or Onyango Obama is the long lost brother Kenyan half-brother of President Obama’s father. The same Uncle Omar mentioned by Bill Ayers in the best selling autobiography “Dreams From My Father”, the life story of President Obama as portrayed by the unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Although he was mentioned in the book, our president is wishing his drunken uncle would behave himself or live in the shadows.

Drunk Uncle Omar Obama was driving drunk after leaving the Chicken Bone Saloon and barely missed hitting a squad car. When he was pulled over, he demanded that he be allowed to call the White House in a belligerent manner. The cops didn’t find the drunk name dropper all that impressive; a drunk illegal alien with a long rap sheet had run down and killed a 23 year old Milford, Mass. man, two weeks earlier.

Open-borders and Open Society advocates of George Soros philosophy consider drunken Obamas to be “harmless”. However, drunken Uncle Omar has defied two court orders to leave the country. He also owes thousands in back taxes and has a fraudulent Social Security Card and has evaded authorities for 50 years.

The court policy that allows the drunk criminals like Omar Obama to simply stay in the country is the “voluntary departure” system that allows illegal aliens to evade the police and deportation for years. Omar lost his first deportation hearing in 1989, he lost a second time with the Board of Immigration Appeals in 1992.

Uncle Omar joined the ranks of an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 illegal aliens who give the law a one finger salute and look upon disregarding America’s Immigration Laws as a right or entitlement.

Drunk Uncle Omar will now be represented by the same Ohio law firm that fought the deportation of President Obama’s indigent welfare collecting aunt, Aunt Zeituni Onyango. Zeituni landed in the US in 2000 on a temporary visa and sought asylum in 2004. She was denied asylum and refused to leave. She hid with relatives in public housing for years before winning a second bid to stay in the US, a country she seems to despise.

Both parties play games with the immigration issues to win votes from the ever growing illegal demographic. Yes, illegals seem to be able to vote, have driver licenses, and Social Security numbers. Especially those who are here illegally and are related to our president.

Aunt Zeituni Onyango, Ward Of The State, Perpetual Welfare Recipient, President's Aunt, Former Illegal Alien

President Bush told Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop deportations until after the 2008 election, when Aunt Zeituni was caught and identified as an Illegal Alien in October of 2008. Thank you former President Bush.

The question remains, how many more of these Obama welfare recipients are we going to be asked to support for the rest of their natural lives in a state of permanent Welfare and Public Housing. Our former inept and clueless President, Jimmy Carter, only had one embarrassing relative, Brother Billy, the one who inspired Billy Beer and became a cultural icon and a standing joke. At least, Billy was humorous; Zeituni and Omar are far from humorous.

We might remember the case of Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb builder by trade; he immigrated to the US illegally (considered legal by Napolitano and Obama) in 1996 through Canada. He claimed political asylum from alleged persecution by Israelis, was released on a $5,000 bond posted by another illegal, then skipped his asylum hearing. His lawyer dropped his asylum claim and a federal judge issued a laughable “voluntary departure order”. Obviously, illegal aliens who enter the country illegally or not interested in leaving the country voluntarily. He later joined a New York City group that was formulating a bombing plot and was arrested after his roommate tipped off local police. And once again we have another example of the DHS being on the ball and defending our country.

“Always remember. Never forget.” Words, just words.

A citizen is rebuffed by a judge for trying to unravel the nefarious facts concerning the president’s dubious Social Security Number.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA____________________________________)ORLY TAITZ, ))Plaintiff, ))v. )) Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL)MICHAEL ASTRUE, )COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL )SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ))Defendant. )____________________________________)MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [21]. Upon considerationof defendant’s motion, plaintiff’s opposition [31], the reply thereto [32], the entire record herein,and the applicable law, the Court will grant summary judgment in defendant’s favor for thereasons set forth below.
I.

BACKGROUND
Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover“the biggest cover up in the history of this nation.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 20 [31]. Shebelieves that the President is using a “fraudulently obtained” social security number and that theSocial Security Administration—among other agencies—is involved in a scheme to “cover[] upsocial security fraud, IRS fraud, elections fraud and possibly treason” committed by thePresident.
Id.
at 5–6, 13. As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stopat nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is nother lucky day.

New York/Shanghai

When the US lost its AAA Credit Rating, China slapped their lap dog in the face and told Obama,

the “good old days” of borrowing are over.

“The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,” China’s official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.

China, america’s largest creditor feels Washington has only itself to blame for its plight and renewed calls for a new global reserve currency.

After a week that saw $2.5 trillion dollars evaporate in global markets, international investors are having deep concerns about an impending recession. The profligate policies of the US and the Euro Zone are adding to the building crisis and neither the us or The EU are willing to cut spending to stop the ever increasing pressures adding to the crisis.

The credit rating downgrade is thought to adversely affect a global dimension, the Euro crisis is only adding fuel to the fire with no relief valve in place.

The political positioning and posturing is seen as pathetic moves to secure political futures in the US rather than addressing the immediate problems. China sighted military and social welfare expenditures as the source of the US “debt addiction”.

“China, the largest creditor of the world’s sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China’s dollar assets,”

It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil.

“International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,” Xinhua said.

We should be prepared for international supervision of our debt. China owns us and they don’t want to lose their investments. Our president will be more than willing to hand over the reins of power, there are rockstars to entertain and barbecues to host. It is called priorities, Obama has an election to think about.

Outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullens, told reporters yesterday that he’s willing to look at cutting the pay and benefits of the troops to help President Obama pay for the $400 billion in cuts for the Defense Department.

Let me first say that even though I’m a Soldier, I don’t think that the Department of Defense should be a sacred cow in budget cutting talks. I can tell you from experience that there is plenty of wasted money within the military on everything from parts, to personnel, to training. For example, military personnel serving in Kosovo, Serbia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, and Kuwait all qualify for $225 per month Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay. In my opinion, Soldiers serving in these relatively safe countries shouldn’t be paid this money. We also waste a lot of money requiring troops to purchase plane tickets that are refundable when they travel on temporary duty. These tickets can cost nearly twice as much versus just buying the same ticket on Travelocity.

Now, I DO believe that any talks of cutting budgets should be proportional. In other words, if $400 billion represents a 10% cut across the board and our 10% is $400 billion, I’m fine with it. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

A search of news sites and aggregates proves how difficult it is to find anything concrete about President Obama’s budget slicing proposals – other than the Defense Department. Meanwhile the federal government is spending nearly $2 billion on new vehicles (including a slew of new limos for the State Department), sending billions in foreign aid to communist/socialist nations like China, Vietnam, Cuba and Venezuela, and lobbing million dollar cruise missiles into a non-declared warzone.

Personally, I think that Soldiers are paid pretty well. While I oppose any CUTS in pay, I would support freezes for ALL federal workers, including troops. I have no problem with having troops pay a little bit more for their health care as long as combat injuries without co-pays or extra fees. I have no problem with increasing family premiums as long as they are on par with the private sector. I support removing wasteful entitlements like “family separation pay” and “stop-loss pay.” To save even more money, the DOD should go to a standard camouflage uniform across the services instead of paying for four different sets. Back in the BDU days, it was like that. Now, every service wants their own distinct camouflage uniform.

There once was a time when federal service was just that – SERVICE! However, since the 50′s, the average salary (with benefits) for a federal worker has ballooned to between $109,00 and $123,000, depending on the numbers used. Let’s go with the low figure to be safe.

To be fair, the majority of federal positions are white collar jobs. Easily, the majority of work done in the federal government is desk work and management of personnel, programs, or money.

One could easily argue that the reason federal employees need to be paid so much is because so many federal jobs are located in the D.C. area, one of the most expensive to live in. I would argue that the majority of work done by these people can be done long distance via telecommuting or VTC. I guarantee that if you move non-essential federal employees out of D.C. and into more midwestern states the cost of living in D.C. will drop drastically.

Our military personnel are engaged in combat and the operational tempo right now is blistering. While we’re meeting our recruiting goals, the retention levels is difficult to maintain. The amount of BS our troops deal with in combat and out is simply not worth it, according to many of them. Some examples are the amazing amount of taskings to support civilian requests for military support that range from rodeos to city events to citizen groups requests. We’re losing mid- and senior-grade leaders to attrition. We don’t need to be cutting pay at this point. Again, I’m all for an across-the-board pay freezes that includes troops.

What I do have a problem with is cutting the pay and benefits of people who WORK FOR THEM while saving programs that provide money and benefits to people who sit on their ass collecting welfare and/or unemployment benefits for nothing! Especially when some of the work these people do involves getting shot at and blown up on a daily basis. We need a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that is willing to stand up or our troops; not throw them under the bus.

Frank Gaffney at Breitbar’s Big Peace, has been following Robert Gates’ last days as Obama’s Sec’y of Defense. The round of speeches by Gates in the past days has many – including Gaffney – scratching their heads, as he solemnly warns against the ““hollowing out” of the military” in what can only be construed as johnnie come lately criticism for Obama’s plan to cut the defense budget by an additional $400 billion by 2023.

This would be the same Sec’y of Defense who had his spokesman say he backed the plan just a month ago, but that the specifics of the slashing would fall to his successor. Or was that just lip service by a dutiful appointee, and former AF officer who recognizes respect for the chain of command? Because it seems Gates was somewhat miffed at Obama’s announcement of the cuts, and by the fact he only found out about the CiC’s decision to do so 24 hours before Obama took to the podium.

The positive WH spin on the cuts is that the budget is higher than Bush’s “average” annual defense spending (without including actual prosecution of the wars), and erroneously suggests that since Gates had already cut $400 bil in waste, that Obama was quite sure he could do it again. It matters not that this POTUS turns a blind eye to the simmering pot that is the Middle East, that he daily forces our military to do more with less – and with technology that is decades old – or that three active war theatres are taking it’s toll on existing inventory.

The Obama FY 2012 budget submission reduced the total increase only slightly – by $162 billion over the four years from 2017 to 2020, according to the careful research of the Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA). That left an annual average base military spending level of $564 billion – 23 percent higher than Bush’s annual average and 40 percent above the level of the 1990s.

Central to last week’s chapter in the larger game was Obama’s assertion that Gates had already saved $400 billion in his administration. “Over the last two years,” he said, “Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again.”

The $400 billion figure is based primarily on the $330 billion Gates claimed he had saved by stopping, reducing or otherwise changing plans for 31 weapons programs. But contrary to the impression left by Obama, that figure does not reflect any cut in projected DOD spending. All of it was used to increase spending on operations and investment in the military budget.

Apparently, in suggesting that Gates could “do that again”, Obama was taking for granted he had the support of his outgoing Defense Sec’y. But the resignation date is turning out to be a liberating moment for Gates because, instead, he’s singing like the canary who finally found his voice. And the birdsong is that the Obama cuts lie outside the realm of reconciling today’s military realities and a healthy national defense capability… and requires the US agrees to downgrade their military dominance voluntarily.

This means the Obama administration and Congress must now decide how much military power the U.S. should give up, how that fits U.S. goals for maintaining global influence, and how to pay for it, Gates said.

“A smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things.”

~~~

“The tough choices ahead are really about the kind of role the American people — accustomed to unquestioned military dominance for the past two decades — want their country to play in the world,” Gates said.

“They need to understand what it could mean for a smaller pool of troops and their families if America is forced into a protracted land war again — yes, the kind no defense secretary should recommend anytime soon, but one we may not be able to avoid.”

That Gates may have been caught unaware of the CiCs intent on stripping US military capabilities might be most evident by the AFA’s notes about two Gates’ speeches in March.. just a month before Obama’s surprise axe fell on the Pentagon budget. At that time, the budget was on track for modernizing our military branches’ arms and air force. Chief of Staff, General Schwartz estimated a replacement rate of 200 aircraft per year to make modest reductions in the average age of the aircraft fleet, and at that time, the budget was well with range, projecting 227 purchases instead of the original 114….

…. at least for a short time, that is.

As Gaffney points out in his Big Peace article, Gates can hardly play the victim here, despite his newly found voice.

But, welcome as his alarm is, the course is one Mr. Gates has largely charted himself.

~~~

Mr. Gates’ warnings about the Obama agenda are indeed welcome. One can only wish he had done less to enable it to date, and pray that he does not make matters worse still before leaving office four weeks from now.

What Gaffney refers to is Gates own record on the military budget under this administration. This is the same Defense Sec’y who cancelled the Army’s Future Combat Systems program and the Air Force’s Next-Generation Bomber and replaced them with a shaved down bomber program, and set the Army to work on a new Ground Combat Vehicle instead…the latter of which has experienced more delays, stops and redesigns than it has shown in progress.

F-22 Raptor flies over Fort Monroe

Michael Goldfarb’s latest for the Weekly Standard Magazine also weighs in on the politics of defense spending, and Gates’ own contributions to gutting the military, including slashing the Navy down to it’s smallest size since WWI, cutting Army and Marine personnel by 47,000, and cutting further production of the F-22 Raptor stealth air to air fighter [pictured to the right], and attempted to rescue the more expensive, lagging in production and troubled budget problems of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter instead.

[Mata Musing: for a comparison of performance and cost between the F-22 and F-35, see the Air Force Association's presentation.]

This same Gates also cancelled the Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program because it has become too expensive.

On the flip side, this is the very same Gates who witnessed, first hand, the risks of gutting military defense as Reagan’s Deputy Director of Intelligence, and then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. He knows all too well the effort and cash it takes to rebuild a military.

In fact, the Defense Secretary spoke in glowing terms of Reagan as both CiC and POTUS in a Nov 2009 speech at the Library of Congress.

Gates called Reagan “the ultimate Cold Warrior.” The new president’s first job was to restore America’s military strength. “A broad U.S. defense build-up began early in the Reagan administration, with more advanced planes, ships, submarines, combat vehicles and nuclear weapons added to America’s arsenal,” Gates said during his speech.

And Reagan wasn’t afraid to use this new American power. Libya challenged American naval might in the Mediterranean Sea with the “Line of Death” at the Gulf of Sidra. In 1981, Reagan sent two aircraft carriers across the line, and Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi sent two fighters to challenge the American ships. \

“Big mistake,” Gates said. Under Ronald Reagan’s new, aggressive rules of engagement, two F-14 Tomcats splashed the two Libyan fighters.”

~~~

But Reagan was not simply an ideologue. “President Reagan also had the insight, the sense of historical moment, to know when it was time to sheathe the sword, soften the tone and re-engage – even with our most implacable enemy,” Gates said.

~~~

“He made it clear that we did not value the ICBMs, tanks, or warships in and of themselves. They were negotiable,” the secretary said. “No, the West’s differences with the East – the democracies’ dispute with communism – was, he said, ‘not about weapons, but about liberty.

~~~

Still there are lessons to be learned, and first among them is the appeal of freedom – political, economic and spiritual. “And the idea that free men and women of different cultures and countries can, for all the squabbling inherent in democracy, come together to get the big things right, and make the tough decisions to deter aggression and preserve their liberty,” Gates said.

Each generation must make this choice, he said. “It is a sad reality that in our time and in the future … there will be those who seek through violence and crimes to dominate and intimidate others,” Gates said. “We saw this on (/11, and we see it today in Afghanistan, where more perseverance, more sacrifice and more patience is required to prevent the terrorists who attacked us from doing so again.

“We see it anywhere nations, movements or strongmen are tempted to believe the United States does not have the will or the means to stand by our friends, to meet our commitments and to defend our way of life,” he continued.

President Reagan knew this inherently, Gates said. “Ronald Reagan was a great president who acted and planned, but most importantly, who dreamed and believed,” the secretary said. “And he truly accomplished great things.”

This does not sound like a man, dedicated to slashing military capabilities when our nation is involved in three theatres overseas and may, if Chuck Devore’s predictions of a coming war against Israel in just a couple of months come to fruition, be needed to stand at Israel’s side against the so called “democracy” results of Arab spring.

Considering Gates’ accommodations for defense program slashes, expensive delays in ramping up new production of future weaponry, listening to his talking points on exiting the Obama cabinet makes you want to ask… will the real Robert Gates please stand up?

There’s two points I need to lay out straight here in my beliefs about spending and our debt/deficits. There is federal spending I support, and nothing is more important than the Constutitonal mandate than to provide for the common defense and maintain a military to protect our borders. If the choice is between military defense – only about 20-25% of the budget – and the liberal penchant for entitlement programs, well… buh bye entitlements. The second is that only a fool would believe we could cure our debt and spending problem by squeezing the Pentagon, and downgrading our military superiority.

That said, spending is a problem and there is certainly room for debate in deciding wise spending when modernizing our defense, which includes what programs, weaponry and vehicle are better suited for 21st Century combat arenas. Whether Gates, with his minimal military service, is best equipped to make those decisions, I don’t know. Panetta, with only two years of Army under his belt and a lifetime of political servitude is even less qualified to make those choices, IMHO. But it was just months after the above speech, extolling Reagan, that Gates taunted Congress and the House Appropriations Committee in a July 2009 Chicago speech for rejecting his suggested budget cuts, saying:

“If the Department of Defense can’t figure out a way to defend the United States on half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes.”

Apparently, even a Democrat majority House recognized the political leanings of the CiC in office, and the danger of his choices of “saving the economy” at the expense of the nation’s safety.

For whatever Gates’ reasons for being Obama’s willing lackey, prior to joining other bodies under the bus after the recent Obama surprise defense cut announcement, one cannot ignore the message he gives in parting. And in doing so, we have to consider what the Defense Department considers the nation’s greatest threat.

Both Donald Rumsfeld and Gates have focused on reviving and revamping an aging US arsenal of weapons, air and naval force, and vehicles for the newest style of combat and post 9/11 threats. Gates has been tasked with either continuing, or discontinuing programs begat under his predecessor.

As an April 2006 Popular Mechanics article about advanced military weaponry points out, the Pentagon has been divided into two camps about just who our “foes” are. Under Bush and Rumsfeld, more emphasis was placed on the Quadrennial Defense Review, what was called “the Long War” against the global Islamic jihad movement threat. In this plan, Afghanistan and Iraq are potentially only the first two theatres. If one considers Obama’s unofficial, and possibly illegal, engagement in Libya, the third has already been added.

The much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld may appear to fall into the “Long War” camp. He, like Gates, spent his six years of Defense Department service believing our military should be restructured for 21st Century warfare, as can best can be exemplified with his on the money comment, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Considering the negative press that ensued, perhaps Rummy should have said, “we go to war with the Army that Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress left us after the 90s Camelot years of fantasy”. But I digress…

Rummy not only poured money into the now off the radar missile defense program that originated under Reagan, he also focused on a ground force that had to be better equipped for the new battle theatres we faced.

Rumsfeld became a champion of the idea that the American military had to change itself–from an array of heavy, plodding forces to a reconfigurable collection of lighter, quicker, better-networked units. Every vehicle, every commander, every drone and every grunt would eventually be connected to a wireless Internet for combat, under the doctrine known alternatively as “revolution in military affairs” or “force transformation.” By sharing so much information, U.S. forces would be able to make decisions lightning-fast, outmaneuvering and outwitting any foe. Missions that used to take countless thousands of soldiers could be accomplished with a few wired-up troops, the theory went.,

But Rumsfeld wasn’t willing to abandon the growing threat of the second foe that was of more import to the other Pentagon camp – China growing military power.

Those that are purists to the Chinese threat in the Pentagon consider Iraq, Afghanistan and the global Islamic jihad movement not only a waste of time, but a “distraction”. To counter the Chinese, the US military needs superior fighter planes, like the F-22 and F-35 above, to combat the new Chinese stealth fighter, the J-20.

Gates appears to be following the “both are foes” path of Rumsfeld, and not the “either/or”path that the Pentagon purists would prefer. His attempts to advance the US stealth fighters, combined with the ground vehicle contracts… even if unsuccessful… indicate he finds both of strategic value to a well-rounded US military in today’s rocky world.

Just one year ago, he was hinting that Chinese anti-ship technology may render our carriers useless. This made him backtrack on cuts that affected advancements in our naval forces.

Tho the official Pentagon view under Gates considers an increasingly capable Chinese military as an advantage in guarding sea lanes and controlling piracy – a task that lands primarily in US hands – Gates was greeted in Bejing this past January with not only Chinese dignitaries, but a demonstration of the J-20. [Pictured left]

“When we talk about a threat, it’s a combination of capabilities and intentions,” said Abraham M. Denmark, a former China country director in Mr. Gates’s office. “The capabilities are becoming more and more clearly defined, and they’re more and more clearly targeted at limiting American abilities to project military power into the western Pacific.”

“What’s unclear to us is the intent,” he added. “China’s military modernization is certainly their right. What others question is how that military power is going to be used.”

Mr. Denmark, who now directs the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said China’s recent strong-arm reaction to territorial disputes with Japan and Southeast Asian neighbors had given both the Pentagon and China’s neighbors cause for concern.

Within days of his first exposure to the J-20 Chinese stealth fighter, Gates was also warning that North Korea’s threat was increasing, stating they were within five years of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles.

One thing is for certain. Gates is out, and July ushers in Leon Panetta, who is likely to be another of Obama’s dutiful puppets, happily swinging the axe. So while we may be confused as to Gates’ vacillating performance under this administration, we would be extremely foolhardy to ignore his final words of warning.

“More perhaps than any other Secretary of Defense, I have been a strong advocate of soft power—of the critical importance of diplomacy and development as fundamental components of our foreign policy and national security,” Mr. Gates said at Notre Dame. “But make no mistake, the ultimate guarantee against the success of aggressors, dictators and terrorists in the 21st century, as in the 20th, is hard power—the size, strength and global reach of the United States military.”

There are those who would say these must be the words of an authoritarian tyrant.

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Barack Obama, July 2, 2008, Colorado Springs, CO.

The plan is in place, the president will now have access to all cell phones in New York City and soon all the big cities in the US will be required to receive messages from “The Won”.

A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones. It’s called the Personal Localized Alert Network or PLAN. Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.

The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system would also warn about terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

“The lessons that were reinforced on 9/11 is the importance of getting clear and accurate information to the public during a crisis,” New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference on Tuesday.

Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s largest cell phone carriers, are already on board. Consumers would be able to opt out of all but those presidential messages.

“We believe this new alert system is a welcome addition to our arsenal of readiness,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said. “It’s like a police officer’s gun: it’s there for a good reason but we hope that we never have to pull the trigger.”

The announcement of the new emergency alert system came in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and an uptick in security and safety concerns around New York City.

For now, the alerts are capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts.

By the end of the year, the new system will be in place in New York City and Washington and in cities around the country by the end of 2012.

Such a move coming from anyone else, might seem to be an excellent idea on the surface; until, we ask why the president has set himself up the provider of all news that is critical to survival in emergencies. Some of us have thought that since Homeland Security is the department in charge of emergencies and our safety, why are they not in charge of giving us critical information?

Could it be, that our president with his totalitarian concepts wants to set himself up as our savior in the event of national emergencies so that we only look to “The Won”for critical information, he alone will be in charge of our deliverance and safety or could it be that Mr Obama plans to sneak in the occasional political message since he has a captive audience waiting for information that will decide matters of life and death, like raising that Debt Ceiling or not opposing his Health Care Plan.

No way would our benevolent leader take advantage of a situation to capitalize on his political career, not the man who left us with the quote up above, not our president, the slayer of Osama.

Be Wary, Big Brother Will soon Be Not Only Watching; He Will Be Listening As Well.

At one time the Left was concerned with the feds listening to Americans speaking with terrorists, now that Obama will have access to everything in your life, everything is just peachy. No it might not happen within the first 90 days, but eventually they will have you, they will know who you are sleeping with, who you vote for, and how fast you drive on the freeway; the sky is the limit and Obama needs that information.

The “new”, supposedly triangulating and fiscally prudent Obama has appeared… or has he? With a nation so fed up with the federal spending, increased size of government, and an economy that isn’t as rosy on Main Street as it is in the Obama pressers, the POTUS takes the “cut spending” midterms message to heart, and goes for the military’s jugular. But Obama’s first proposed cuts to make the news are a mixed bag. Included in the WH demands to Defense Sec’y Gates is cutting up to 47,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps forces, and raising the Tricare military family health insurance premiums.

To make ends meet, Mr. Gates also announced that he would seek to recoup billions of dollars by increasing fees paid by retired veterans under 65 for Defense Department health insurance, even though Congress has rejected such proposals in the past. And he outlined extensive cuts in new weapons.

The Pentagon’s proposed operating budget for 2012 is expected to be about $553 billion, which would still reflect real growth, even though it is $13 billion less than expected. The Pentagon budget will then begin a decline in its rate of growth for two years, and stay flat — growing only to match inflation — for the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. (The Pentagon operating budget is separate from a fund that finances the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.)

“This plan represents, in my view, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary, given the complex and unpredictable array of security challenges the United States faces around the globe: global terrorist networks, rising military powers, nuclear-armed rogue states and much, much more,” Mr. Gates said.

To be sure, the actual size and shape of future military budgets will continue to be reset by annual spending proposals from the president, and those in turn will be based on shifting economic factors — decline or growth — and threats around the world, as well as by Congressional action.

But for now, the Army is expected in 2015 to begin cutting its active-duty troop levels by 27,000, and the Marine Corps by up to 20,000. Together, those force reductions would save $6 billion in 2015 and 2016.

~~~

But some — especially increases in fees for the military’s health-care system, called Tricare — require Congressional approval, and have been rejected before.

Proposals to increase Tricare fees will pit Mr. Gates against those in Congress — and veterans’ groups — who say retired military personnel already have paid up front with service in uniform. Ten years ago, health care cost the Pentagon $19 billion; today, it tops $50 billion; five years from now it is projected to cost $65 billion.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in this? Troops that are to be cut from the military will instead be Joe Citizen, pounding Main Street for jobs in an economy that has seen unemployment figures of over 9% for 20 months, and promises little hope for reprieve over the next 4-5 years, per Fed Reserve guru, Ben Bernanke. I would guess that Mr. Bernanke sauntered over to Calculated Risk Blog, and had a gander at the incoming housing bombs looming on the horizon… as noted in the various graphics showing the increased default mortgage payments of unemployed or struggling homeowners, comprising 2011′s onslaught of foreclosures.

The irony is further compounded by the POTUS who claims to make health insurance more affordable, while sanctioning raising the premiums for military families out of the other side of his forked tongue.

But the bad joke known as the Obama economy doesn’t stop there. Admittedly, while the Pentagon, like virtually all federal agencies, could use a thorough accounting house cleaning for waste, Obama has spent his time in office adding new agency after new agency for both health care, and his financial “reform”. Yet when it comes times to looking at cutting, does he consider his damage and increased spending in the health world? But of course not…. instead, he turns his attention to the defense budget, which is less than a quarter of all US expenditures.

Taking the military back to pre 911 Clinton days in this era is simply not a wise idea. Constitutionally, the POTUS as commander in chief is sworn, duty bound, to protect this nation. Our strong military has not only served as our protection, but is depended upon by an international community of nations who have substandard militaries and defense budgets to make up the difference. While we are not to be the police of the world, without our military strength the international conflicts over the past century would have pulled our nation into the dangerous net inevitably.

Do we need spending cuts? Absolutely. Should we also be embarking on austerity measures, like Euro nations? You betcha. But what and how we cut may make the difference to our very survival of the nation, as it was founded. It’s been a difficult enough learning curve, waiting for Obama to catch on that Keynesian policies is a dead end road. But now it’s painfully obvious that this Commander in Chief prefers his Community Organizer tasks over commanding a strong, superior military. And there is little room left under that proverbial bus for the soldiers who will not be soldiers in the wake of this, or the hardship imposed on our military families, who have sacrificed the most for our nation, with the increased costs of medical care.

Neil Cavuto on the debt commission recent recommendations….we need to show some guts:

He makes some valid points. Everyone knows we need this deficit to go down, way down, and he is asking if we are all prepared to do whats necessary?

BUT…I’m not buying it. Much of what they are recommending seem to be tax hikes and the expansion of government. Hell, they don’t even call for the repeal of ObamaCare which will GREATLY expand government

Not good.

• By its own admission (page 11), the report calls for a ten-year net tax hike of $961 billion, nearly a $1 trillion tax increase over the decade.
• The stated goal of the report is to raise the long-standing historical level of federal revenues from its average of 18 percent of GDP to 21 percent of GDP.  According to President Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget, federal revenues have never been this high, and their data pre-dates World War II.
• The report deceptively calls their net tax hikes “spending in the tax code.”  There is no such thing, unless you assume the government has a right to all your money, and when they cut your taxes this is the same thing as “spending money on you.”
• Additionally, the report calls for a tax hike “trigger” to take effect if Congress fails to enact comprehensive tax reform.  This “trigger” would take the form of a 10 percent reduction in the mortgage interest deduction, charitable contribution deductions, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, and a host of other tax deductions and credits. This haircut would grow over time, eventually leading to untold trillions of dollars in tax hikes.
• The gas tax would be raised by $0.15 per gallon beginning in 2013. All this money would be spent on union-dominated “Davis Bacon” construction projects.  An American family with a 15-gallon tank who fills up weekly would see a tax hike of $117 per year.
• There’s a stealth tax hike which involves slowing down how fast tax brackets adjust to inflation.  Over time, American families would find themselves in higher tax brackets than they otherwise would.  “Bracket creep” would begin to once again rear its ugly head.
• Not counted in the $1 trillion tax hike is an expansion of the Social Security taxable wage base.  Under current law, only the first $106,800 in wages and net income from self-employment are taxable.  The report calls for the Social Security taxable wage base to gradually increase to nearly $150,000 (in today’s dollars) by 2050. This increases the marginal tax rate on work by 12.4 percentage points for workers in this income range.
• Finally, the report calls for an automatic tax increase in any year that the budget is out of balance.

And when politicians who love to raise your taxes start making statements like the one below we REALLY need to take another look at these recommendations:

The Senate’s top Democrat on budgetary issues said that colleagues should be willing to “sacrifice” their political careers in order to get the U.S. on a better fiscal path.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said that bringing down deficits and debt would require tough choices like the ones proposed on Wednesday by the leaders of President Obama’s fiscal commission, recommendations that have already been met with a chilly reception.

“There is no way of doing it that’s not controversial or difficult,” Conrad said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” of the panel’s recommendations. “If some of us have to sacrifice a political career to get this country back on track, then so be it.”

Be very afraid when someone like Conrad is telling Democrats to fall on the sword.

And here is Rush on his radio show (video here) on the recommendations, quoting Steve Manacek:

“A lot of introductory verbiage could have come straight from the mouth of Ronald Reagan. Cut and invest to promote economic growth, cut spending we simply can’t afford wherever we find it, reform and simplify the tax code, broaden the base, lower rates, bring down the deficit.” I shared all this with you yesterday, and so on. “There are pages and pages of more or less specific proposals, some more pleasing to conservatives, others to liberals. But here’s what I don’t get about the initial reactions,” Mr. Manacek writes. “Putting aside all the minutia and all the detail the crux of the proposal comes down to two points: Capping federal government expenditures at 22% of GDP and capping revenues at 21% of GDP.

“Each of these represents a big problem. The first is on the spending side. Except for the anomalous stimulus bailout recession years of 2009 and 2011, federal government expenditures haven’t reached 21% of GDP since the collapse of the Soviet Union,” and Mr. Manacek writes here, “Except for the anomalous stimulus bailout recession years 2009 and 2011.” The whole point — if you want to really know the dirty little secret (I know I overuse that phrase) — the truth about the stimulus package was to increase the baseline on which future budgets are built. In two years, they increased the baseline around 20%, maybe even more. He’s out there saying, “shovel-ready jobs,” and then he said there aren’t any shovel-ready jobs. It was never about jobs as we know.

There weren’t any jobs that were created. We continued to lose jobs. It was rhetoric. Jobs created, jobs saved? This was about massively increasing the budget for all time. That’s what the stimulus bill was, to up the baseline. Now, those of you have been regular listeners since the early nineties know all about baseline budgeting. We spent a week explaining it to you. The baseline is simply the amount every year that every budget item is based on, whether the item is overfunded or underfunded, it doesn’t matter. So when Mr. Manacek writes here, “Except for the anomalous stimulus bailout recession years of 2009 and 2011, federal government expenditures have not reached 21% of GDP since the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

But they did with the stimulus. Permanently. The stimulus raised the baseline, and so now this debt commission comes up and says, “We’re gonna cap federal government expenditures at 22%.” But the problem is we’ve never spent 22% of GDP. Since World War II. Spending only competed 21% of GDP during the Reagan-Bush military buildup of the eighties and nineties. For virtually all of the Clinton and George W. Bush years and during all the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon years, federal spending ranged between 18 and 20% of GDP”, and this deficit report caps it at 22%. It raises the baseline exactly what the stimulus was.

This thing is a blueprint for the expansion of government and codifying it as law, at 22%, when we’ve never spent that, up until Obama shows up. That’s one side of this. “The more important problem is on the revenue side. According to OMB figures, federal revenues have never reached 21% of GDP. That’s what they are targeted to be in this initial report that came out yesterday. In fact, only in Bill Clinton’s final year in office and during World War II did revenues even exceed 20% of GDP. During the whole time from 1960 to 2008, federal tax revenues almost always fell between 17 and 19% of GDP, only occasionally rising above 19%, chiefly in Clinton’s second term or below 17%, George W. Bush’s first term.”

Look, there’s a lot of numbers here. The bottom line is federal spending has never been as high as what this deficit commission report suggests, and federal taxes have never been as high as what this deficit commission report suggests. This is a trick, and it’s got all the Reagan language in there and it’s got all the stuff that sucks our side into saying, “Ohh, yeah, we’ll look at this.” You got the left not liking it because they don’t like the ratio of 75% spending cuts and 25% tax cuts, but there isn’t any cutting! It’s just like every year of the federal budget: There’s nothing being cut here. Taxes, spending, zilch. It’s all going up to unprecedented levels in our history and that’s the truth about this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One more reason to totally ignore the commissioner’s report yesterday on the deficit reduction panel report. They don’t even mention getting rid of health care, and if you are serious about reducing government, if you’re serious about tackling our debt, you gotta repeal it. You cannot have any element of it. They don’t even talk about it. It’s just baseless. Well, it isn’t baseless. It’s dangerous what this report does ’cause it’s a trick. It’s sucking our guys in, “Oh, wow, look, Reagan language in there, broadening the base, oh, yeah, I kinda dig the lower rates in there, I really do, love the spending to tax cut ratio.” Take your cue from the left. They hate it. They hate it, and they’re stupid. If they understood what this thing actually proposed they’d be out there trying to get it passed today.

So while Neil Cavuto makes some points, we all need to take some hits, this commissions recommendations don’t appear to be the savior some are calling it.

NATO Tankers And Fuel Burns In Pakistan After Attack By Insurgents

Albert Speer, Prominent National Socialist, Laid Out Key To Winning Wars

Our supplies of diesel fuel is being compromised in Pakistan: apparently our fuel is delivered to Afghanistan by truck through Pakistan with only light Pakistani security. Whether the Taliban forces are actually applying military history lessons or they are just taking advantage of our weakest point, their latest tactic can possibly bring our war effort to a grinding halt. This tactic was outlined by Albert Speer in his memoir “Inside The Third Reich”.

Albert Speer joined the National Socialist Workers Party in 1931, he worked his way up the ladder as an architect and became part of Hitler’s inner circle. Extremely talented, Speer was given the responsibility of getting different industries back up and running after Allied bombing destroyed the different armament facilities. He was so proficient it defied the imagination, the allies would bomb a refinery and Speer would have it up and running in a few days, he did the same with tire factories, ball bearing factories, and munition factories. He was so good at battling the effects of Allied bombing that he extended the war by months if not years. Although his efforts were not war crimes; using slave labor to rebuild the facilities caused Speer to be sentenced to 20 years at Spandau Prison.

Speer was atypical of the other National Socialist prisoners, he cooperated with Allied forces and exposed many of the inner workings of the Nazi Party. In his memoir of the Third Reich, Speer told Allied commanders how they could have won the war within a few months. According to Speer, the Allies bombed one target after another or one industry after another, rather than concentrating on one industry like ball bearings. If the ball bearing facilities would have been bombed every time he rebuilt the facility, the war would have literall ground to a halt in thirty days.

This glaring mistake cost tens of thousands of American lives and has been kept under wraps for decades, either intentionally or by accident since the concept admits that we didn’t prosecute the war as effectively as we should have. None the less, the Taliban has no pretensions at being concerned over feelings or being politically correct; they intend to win this conflict, using a page from Speer’s memoirs to attack our weak underbelly is only common sense to our enemies.

It pains a Naval Academy graduate and former carrier pilot to propose the first thing to be cut should be the aircraft carrier battle groups. Those magnificent ships and aircraft are too expensive, and are designed to fight the last war, not future wars. In practice exercises between submarines and carriers, the submarines win. Every time.

Any nation that fears it might be attacked by the USS FORD will not build an aircraft carrier to match it. No country could do it. But they could build missiles to do the job instead, and they have done just that. For the cost of two aircraft parked on the flight deck of the FORD, an enemy can fire dozens of cruise missiles from ships, submarines, and aircraft that will home in on the carrier from hundreds of miles away and slam into it at the speed of sound. The damage from the warhead and the kinetic energy of such a missile is devastating, and multiple hits will sink the largest ship.

FORD has not yet been built, but do missiles exist that can sink it? Here is one, the BrahMos, a $3 million Mach 3 cruise missile built by a joint venture between Russia and India. The next version, BrahMos II, will be ready in 2013 and will impact a target at more than five times the speed of sound.

There may be a silver lining in the dark cloud of national debt. Besides forcing us to get rid of excess weaponry we cannot afford, the debt will force the Pentagon to do strategic planning and redesign our defense against tomorrow’s enemies. That is, if the White House will allow us to even name today’s Islamic enemies.

“If a project doesn’t support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn’t perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of pork, I will veto it”
-President Obama, Aug 17, 2009, VFW speech

Another pie-crust politician’s promise, easily made, easily broken.