Pravda, yes that Pravda, ran a story (an opinion piece really), lecturing the Obama administration on its' embracement of a state run economy and extolling the virtues of Putin's pro free market policies. It goes on to explain this is only possible (Obama's rcent win) with an "illiterate electorate."
Read the full story HERE. Sounds like an SNL bit - Pravda lecturing a US president on the dangers of a planned economy - but that's where we find ourselves these days.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Nap time...
It's 4 PM EST...
An oven-roasted turkey, pot of garlic mashed potatoes, Brussel sprouts with hollandaise sauce, green bean casserole, sweet potato casserole, crab-stuffed mushrooms, giblet stuffing, biscuits, and turkey gravy... topped with home-made pumpkin pie and whip cream.
God almighty, I'm so full I could die.
An oven-roasted turkey, pot of garlic mashed potatoes, Brussel sprouts with hollandaise sauce, green bean casserole, sweet potato casserole, crab-stuffed mushrooms, giblet stuffing, biscuits, and turkey gravy... topped with home-made pumpkin pie and whip cream.
God almighty, I'm so full I could die.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm thankful for my wife and children... for my family and friends... for my home, the food we eat and the job that pays for it all. I'm thankful that I live where I do, where opportunity still exists for anyone willing to try, where barriers that once existed continue to fall away with each passing year, and were I am able to say what I feel without fear of oppression or retribution. I'm thankful for the men and women that have stood up and defended this country and its people without regard for the risk to themselves, past and present.
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Call of Duty Black Ops "who?"
So I purchased my sons each their own copy of the new Call of Duty game, Black Ops II. We did the midnight release, the whole 9 yards. Something interesting... the game's campaign storyline is set in the year 2025, and guess who's the Secretary of Defense (identified by name and likeness) in the not too distant fictionalized future? If you said David Patraeus, you win the kinky officer award.
I like Patraeus. I think the PhD holding, author of the military anti-terrorism manual (literally the author), former commander of the Airborne, Uday and Qusay Heussein killing, architect of the surge, former CentCom commander, former 4-star general, and now former CIA director is the natural Sec-Def choice, fiction or non fiction. So despite his sex scandal I have no problem with him playing the role of "good guy" in my sons' video game. However, what I find utterly unbearable is that Patraeus' most prominent few minutes in the game depicts him accepting custody of a terrorist on board an aircraft carrier... the "USS Barack Obama."
UGHHHHHHH!
I like Patraeus. I think the PhD holding, author of the military anti-terrorism manual (literally the author), former commander of the Airborne, Uday and Qusay Heussein killing, architect of the surge, former CentCom commander, former 4-star general, and now former CIA director is the natural Sec-Def choice, fiction or non fiction. So despite his sex scandal I have no problem with him playing the role of "good guy" in my sons' video game. However, what I find utterly unbearable is that Patraeus' most prominent few minutes in the game depicts him accepting custody of a terrorist on board an aircraft carrier... the "USS Barack Obama."
UGHHHHHHH!
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Patreaus, the timeline...
Wow, this is the most bizarre story. What we must keep in mind throughout this is the 4 dead Americans in Bengahazi, Libya. THAT is what's at the heart of this whole scandal, not sex under a desk or Generals being lead around by their privates. The only upside is now that this involves sex, affairs, inappropriate emails and the like, the press may by accident get to the heart of the Benghazi scandal. Here's what I know, so far (source):
Spring 2006:
Biography of Petraeus co-authored by Broadwell, “All In: The Education of General David
Petraeus,” is published (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
Spring 2012:
TWO POINTS, as it pertains to the POTUS, and Benghazi.
1.) The POTUS
As an intelligent, informed, high end consumer of news and information, the White House would have me believe the following: the FBI only learned of the affair after Kelley went to them in the Spring of 2012, and NOT during the Summer 2011 FBI vetting of Patraeus for the position of CIA director; that the president's own top terrorism advisor, John Brennan, knew about the affair as early as the summer of 2011; that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about it as early as July 2012; that GOP Majority Whip Eric Cantor knew about the affair in October of 2012; and that National Intelligence Director James Clapper not only knew about the affair, but on Nov 6th, 2012 met with and essentially fired Patraeus, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION?
Come on. Clearly he knew. I'd be shocked if he didn't know prior to referring him as Director of Central Intelligence.
2.) Benghazi
Not as widely reported as "sex under the desk" is the fact that Patraes went to Tripoli and Benghazi at the end of October/early November 2012 (read: right before the election). He conducted interviews with the CIA station chief, with the quick reaction force, and other principles in the Benghazi attack. Think about this - the Director went and did a personal investigation into what happened. He did the interviews himself. He was set to testify, before the Senate, on Tuesday, November 13th (today) on what he found. Think about that - the election was November 6th. His testimony was set for November 13th. there was one week only, one very specific week, that the Patraeus affair/resignation could go public and it not effect the election yet come before his testimony. And MIRACULOUSLY he "resigned" that very week!
I don't know what Patraeus discovered in Benghazi or what he was prepared to divulge to the Senate. Were we supplying Al Qeada types with heavy weapons to overthrow Qaddafi? Were those same weapons then used against us in the Benghazi attack? Was the "stand down" order issued from the White House situation room? Broadwell has since publicly claimed (apparently inadvertently) that the CIA had two "persons of interests" being "interrogated" at that CIA safe house and that was the impetus behind its' attack. Of course, such "interrogations" would not fly with Obama's executive order on torture.
The bottom line (as F. Ryan sees it): One, the POTUS put Patraeus in as CIA director knowing about the affair. I assume they saw that bit of info as a card they could play if necessary, so the affair was a plus, not a minus - this is the Chicago style. And two, clearly the administration was seeking to prevent Patraeus' testimony. They probably (my conjecture) offered to keep the affair quiet if he would tow the administration line on Benghazi, under oath, before congress. He refused, resigned, and publicly acknowledged the affair to take their play away. So the only play the administration has left is to delay Patraeus' testifying for as long as possible as they leak out one perverted detail after another so by the time he testifies his credibility is shot and any damning statements will be chalked up to sour grapes. And that play could work given the Press core contains some of Obama's most devout cult members.
If I'm right, Patraeus should go nuclear now and divulge everything he knows short of national secrets act violations. At this point his credibility still retains enough respect for people to believe him. If he waits, who knows.
One last thing.... yes, I do believe the administration's end game in all of this is to keep the truth about Benghazi from seeing the light of day. Their many and varied stories on what happened makes that clear, as does the obvious move to prevent the Patraeus testimony. But the blade they held to Patraeus' neck before he resigned, and the club they're using to smash his credibility now, Patraeus handed those weapons to them on a silver platter. His affair left him vulnerable. I just hope he has enough honor left that he'll opt for personal shame - the public release of all the administration has on him - rather than lie to congress and the public, either directly or through omission. I think our discovering the truth on Benghazi hinges entirely on that man's honor.
Spring 2006:
- Paula Broadwell meets David Petraeus at a Harvard University function (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Broadwell decides to pursue a doctorate in public policy and conduct a case study on Petraeus’ leadership. Petraeus invites her to go on a run in Washington, D.C. (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Petraeus is put in charge of the war in Afghanistan and Broadwell would visit and observe him in Afghanistan (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Senate confirms appointment of Petraeus as CIA director (Reuters).
- Petraeus retires after 37 years in the U.S. Army (ABC).
- White House counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan reportedly became aware of a relationship between Petraeus and Broadwell, according to Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin and Adam Housley (Fox, Nov. 12).
- Petreaus sworn in as CIA director (CIA)
- At some point after taking office, Broadwell broke off the affair but Petraeus continued to pursue her “sending thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment,” according to Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler (Newsmax, Nov. 9).
- Broadwell and Petraeus extramarital affair started after he left military service and ended about four months ago. (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Sometime within the past four or five months – one official said “early summer” – a woman complained to the FBI about harassing emails that were later determined to have been written by Broadwell. In the course of investigating that complaint, the FBI discovered an affair between Broadwell and Petraeus (Reuters, Nov. 11).
Spring 2012:
- FBI starts investigation, intercepting Petraeus’ emails and reviewing older emails going back to his time in Afghanistan, where he was commander of U.S. Forces from July 2010 to July 2011 (Newsmax, Nov. 9).
- Federal investigators interview Broadwell. (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Broadwell delivers speech at University of Denver, discussing details about how Petraeus handled the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and revealing possibly classified information about alleged Libyan militia members being held prisoner at that consulate and that situation may have been a potential catalyst for the attack (Fox News, Nov. 12).
- Federal investigators interview Petraeus. Prosecutors conclude afterward they likely will not bring criminal charges. (Reuters, Nov. 11)
- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office contacts FBI to inform them about information from an FBI whistle blower who told Cantor (R-Va.) in late October that Petraeus had been involved in an extramarital affair and was potentially putting national security at risk (New York Times, Nov. 10, 2012).
- At about 5 p.m.: the FBI notifies Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who oversees the CIA and other intelligence agencies, about Petraeus. Clapper speaks to Petraeus that evening and again Wednesday and advises him to step down (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Clapper informs White House National Security Council official that Petraeus may resign and President Barack Obama should be informed. The president is told about it later that day (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- At 11 a.m. a Petraeus meeting with foreign dignitaries scheduled for 2:30 p.m. is canceled and his visitors are informed he has to go to the White House to meet with Obama. Petraeus meets with Obama at the White House and offers his resignation, explaining the circumstances behind it. Obama did not immediately accept the resignation (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- In a statement to CIA employees Friday, Petraeus said he submitted his resignation to President Barack Obama on Thursday and Obama accepted it Friday afternoon (CIA).
- Fox News reported the affair was with his biographer and was discovered during the course of an FBI investigation on an “unrelated and much broader case.” According to Fox, journalist and biographer Paula Broadwell’s name came up during the investigation, which led to uncovering the affair (Fox News, Nov. 9).
- Fox News analyst Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, speculates that Obama administration knew of the affair and waited for the right moment to “play the card” (Fox News, Nov. 9)
- A senior U.S. military official says Broadwell sent harassing emails to a woman who was the State Department’s liaison to the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, says 37-year-old Jill Kelley in Tampa, Fla., received the emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell that triggered an FBI investigation. (TheBlaze/AP).
- It has since been learned that the commander who replaced Patraeus in Afganistan as head of US Forces, Four-Star General John Allen, was also an "acquaintance" of Jill Kelley, and he too sent "thousands" of "flirtatious" emails to Kelley.
- In addition, the original FBI agent that Kelley approached to complain about the threatening emails from Broadwell also became obsessed with Kelley. The FBI discovered this about their own agent via multiple "shirtless" emails he sent with suggestive captioning.
TWO POINTS, as it pertains to the POTUS, and Benghazi.
1.) The POTUS
As an intelligent, informed, high end consumer of news and information, the White House would have me believe the following: the FBI only learned of the affair after Kelley went to them in the Spring of 2012, and NOT during the Summer 2011 FBI vetting of Patraeus for the position of CIA director; that the president's own top terrorism advisor, John Brennan, knew about the affair as early as the summer of 2011; that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about it as early as July 2012; that GOP Majority Whip Eric Cantor knew about the affair in October of 2012; and that National Intelligence Director James Clapper not only knew about the affair, but on Nov 6th, 2012 met with and essentially fired Patraeus, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION?
Come on. Clearly he knew. I'd be shocked if he didn't know prior to referring him as Director of Central Intelligence.
2.) Benghazi
Not as widely reported as "sex under the desk" is the fact that Patraes went to Tripoli and Benghazi at the end of October/early November 2012 (read: right before the election). He conducted interviews with the CIA station chief, with the quick reaction force, and other principles in the Benghazi attack. Think about this - the Director went and did a personal investigation into what happened. He did the interviews himself. He was set to testify, before the Senate, on Tuesday, November 13th (today) on what he found. Think about that - the election was November 6th. His testimony was set for November 13th. there was one week only, one very specific week, that the Patraeus affair/resignation could go public and it not effect the election yet come before his testimony. And MIRACULOUSLY he "resigned" that very week!
I don't know what Patraeus discovered in Benghazi or what he was prepared to divulge to the Senate. Were we supplying Al Qeada types with heavy weapons to overthrow Qaddafi? Were those same weapons then used against us in the Benghazi attack? Was the "stand down" order issued from the White House situation room? Broadwell has since publicly claimed (apparently inadvertently) that the CIA had two "persons of interests" being "interrogated" at that CIA safe house and that was the impetus behind its' attack. Of course, such "interrogations" would not fly with Obama's executive order on torture.
The bottom line (as F. Ryan sees it): One, the POTUS put Patraeus in as CIA director knowing about the affair. I assume they saw that bit of info as a card they could play if necessary, so the affair was a plus, not a minus - this is the Chicago style. And two, clearly the administration was seeking to prevent Patraeus' testimony. They probably (my conjecture) offered to keep the affair quiet if he would tow the administration line on Benghazi, under oath, before congress. He refused, resigned, and publicly acknowledged the affair to take their play away. So the only play the administration has left is to delay Patraeus' testifying for as long as possible as they leak out one perverted detail after another so by the time he testifies his credibility is shot and any damning statements will be chalked up to sour grapes. And that play could work given the Press core contains some of Obama's most devout cult members.
If I'm right, Patraeus should go nuclear now and divulge everything he knows short of national secrets act violations. At this point his credibility still retains enough respect for people to believe him. If he waits, who knows.
One last thing.... yes, I do believe the administration's end game in all of this is to keep the truth about Benghazi from seeing the light of day. Their many and varied stories on what happened makes that clear, as does the obvious move to prevent the Patraeus testimony. But the blade they held to Patraeus' neck before he resigned, and the club they're using to smash his credibility now, Patraeus handed those weapons to them on a silver platter. His affair left him vulnerable. I just hope he has enough honor left that he'll opt for personal shame - the public release of all the administration has on him - rather than lie to congress and the public, either directly or through omission. I think our discovering the truth on Benghazi hinges entirely on that man's honor.
On this, I can't argue...
As has been said before... Obama has all the earmarks of a true, classically defined "cult of personality". More so than any other American President ever has, including Kennedy.
Now, is this something Obama has intentionally done? I don't know. I do know he does nothing to combat it... but who would? His "fans" include some of the biggest names in the media today... and the vast majority of them work for major news outlets like MSNBC and CNN. That is what is so painful, really... Obama doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They do it all for him, every time the TV news is turned on in America.
I've always had issues with the "Reagan-ites" who drop to their knees and prostrate themselves at the mere mention of Ron Wilson's name... but I guess that can't be considered a "cult of personality" since he is no longer in office (and, in fact, no longer alive). Perhaps Ron's legacy will one day include an "ism" similar to what Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin had, so that the ideology that he espoused (or that is attributed to him today, whether he espoused it or not) can more readily associate itself with those seeking power and authority. His "partner" in the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher, already has an "ism" that is routinely associated with the "conservative" attitude in Britain that demands further separation from the EU and globalism in general. Perhaps that is more akin to "rose-tinted glasses" than personality cults, however.
Either way, objective analysis is out the window... especially in Obama's case.
Now, is this something Obama has intentionally done? I don't know. I do know he does nothing to combat it... but who would? His "fans" include some of the biggest names in the media today... and the vast majority of them work for major news outlets like MSNBC and CNN. That is what is so painful, really... Obama doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They do it all for him, every time the TV news is turned on in America.
I've always had issues with the "Reagan-ites" who drop to their knees and prostrate themselves at the mere mention of Ron Wilson's name... but I guess that can't be considered a "cult of personality" since he is no longer in office (and, in fact, no longer alive). Perhaps Ron's legacy will one day include an "ism" similar to what Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin had, so that the ideology that he espoused (or that is attributed to him today, whether he espoused it or not) can more readily associate itself with those seeking power and authority. His "partner" in the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher, already has an "ism" that is routinely associated with the "conservative" attitude in Britain that demands further separation from the EU and globalism in general. Perhaps that is more akin to "rose-tinted glasses" than personality cults, however.
Either way, objective analysis is out the window... especially in Obama's case.
Monday, November 12, 2012
And they call Mormons a cult...
I've been wondering, since the President won reelection, about something. It's admittedly optimistic, but straws are all I have to grasp at while looking down the barrel of a 332-206 loss, right? Is it possible that this guy, this particular guy, Obama, was just impossible to beat? In other words, with everything that goes into his elections being "historic", the first black American elected president, his pop culture status, etc, etc, has it created a cult of personality that was incapable of defeat?
Lets consider these few explanations of his victory that may give us some hope that our fellow Americans aren't just butt-stupid...
1.) The popularity surrounding the personality of such cults is based on charisma, not results. This is the one politician that can can hang out with Jay-Z and George Clooney and still be the coolest guy in the room.
2.) An off-shoot of this personality cult theory - people voted for Obama for the same reason people drive hybrid or electric vehicles. They couldn't care less about performance, they like what their choice says about them... "I care", "I'm open-minded", "I'm cool too."
3.) Third, in my attempt to explain why he won without condemning 63 million Americans to embracing a socialist ideology, is our underestimation of the power of incumbency. In the last 100 years we (Republicans) have unseated a Democrat president only once, when Reagan beat Carter in 1980. Think about George W. Bush (by the way, Titus, he is not a "Jr."). The hatred for him in 2004 was vehement on the Left. Yet he won. And not only did he win, two years later in 06' his Party was demolished in congress. Which does not portend this overwhelming like of Republicans in general throughout the mid 2000's. Incumbents are tough to beat. In fact they have an impressive record, regardless of Party affiliation. The upside of that historical trend is we should do extremely well in the 2014 mid-terms.
Perhaps. and most probably, Obama's victory was a combination of all three. If you doubt it, ask yourself if the average, white, un-hip politician could have won reelection with these economic numbers. Does a Kerry, a Gore presidency survive the last four years? Like SNL said in their post election Obama parody, "Republicans, I can't believe you couldn't beat me. Unemployment is 8%, gas is $5, and I gave you a one debate head start." It's funny because it's true. Bare in mind that the same SNL episode portrayed Mitt Romney quailing his depression by going on a milk-drinking binge.
I said before the election that my only reservation about Romney's prospects was that this is now a nation which employs Paris Hilton via her popularity, purely via her popularity (I've also heard Obama called "President Kardashian"). And we just reelected the Paris of politics Commander-in-Chief.
But to be frank, I actually prefer to think 63,286,423 of my fellow Americans embraced Obama's "coolness" rather than his ideology. Under that scenario all we have to do is run a cool, suave, hip, good-looking conservative and we're a lock.
WOAH! ... I better clear my schedule!
Lets consider these few explanations of his victory that may give us some hope that our fellow Americans aren't just butt-stupid...
1.) The popularity surrounding the personality of such cults is based on charisma, not results. This is the one politician that can can hang out with Jay-Z and George Clooney and still be the coolest guy in the room.
2.) An off-shoot of this personality cult theory - people voted for Obama for the same reason people drive hybrid or electric vehicles. They couldn't care less about performance, they like what their choice says about them... "I care", "I'm open-minded", "I'm cool too."
3.) Third, in my attempt to explain why he won without condemning 63 million Americans to embracing a socialist ideology, is our underestimation of the power of incumbency. In the last 100 years we (Republicans) have unseated a Democrat president only once, when Reagan beat Carter in 1980. Think about George W. Bush (by the way, Titus, he is not a "Jr."). The hatred for him in 2004 was vehement on the Left. Yet he won. And not only did he win, two years later in 06' his Party was demolished in congress. Which does not portend this overwhelming like of Republicans in general throughout the mid 2000's. Incumbents are tough to beat. In fact they have an impressive record, regardless of Party affiliation. The upside of that historical trend is we should do extremely well in the 2014 mid-terms.
Perhaps. and most probably, Obama's victory was a combination of all three. If you doubt it, ask yourself if the average, white, un-hip politician could have won reelection with these economic numbers. Does a Kerry, a Gore presidency survive the last four years? Like SNL said in their post election Obama parody, "Republicans, I can't believe you couldn't beat me. Unemployment is 8%, gas is $5, and I gave you a one debate head start." It's funny because it's true. Bare in mind that the same SNL episode portrayed Mitt Romney quailing his depression by going on a milk-drinking binge.
I said before the election that my only reservation about Romney's prospects was that this is now a nation which employs Paris Hilton via her popularity, purely via her popularity (I've also heard Obama called "President Kardashian"). And we just reelected the Paris of politics Commander-in-Chief.
But to be frank, I actually prefer to think 63,286,423 of my fellow Americans embraced Obama's "coolness" rather than his ideology. Under that scenario all we have to do is run a cool, suave, hip, good-looking conservative and we're a lock.
WOAH! ... I better clear my schedule!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
