Obama decides to "spike the ball" one more time; some say one time too many.

Translation:  

Received phone call from (National Security Adviser) 

Tom Donilon who stated that the president made a 

decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound

 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. 

The timing, operational decision making and control 

are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided 

on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional 

risks are to be brought back to the president for his 

consideration. The direction is to go in and get Bin Laden 

and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were

 conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 a.m.

Well,  Obama should have left "well enough alone."  Here is what he has done. 

Click on the image if you must, but why? Its the translation that is important.  

For a second time in a year,  he has decided to "ride the wave" of popularism coming from the killing of bin Laden.  One wonders why he is making this effort, now . . . . 6 months before the election.  One wonders why he is making the effort at all,  in view of the fact that the original "wave of popularism" was a 5 point bump that lasted all of two weeks.  Along the same line of thought,  I am wondering why he pushed this political scheme,  at this time.  Let’s assume he gets a bump out of the current effort.  What advantage will there be 6 months from now?  I don’t get it.  Anyone still think he is a marvel when it comes to running a campaign.?   Understand this, you are not looking at a genius campaigner.  Nope.  Rather,  you are watching what happens when a man can campaign full time instead of working,  and has unlimited funds to spend.  He is a cheap suit who has not done the job he was hired to do. 

You should know that the longer we all have to think about what happened, one year ago today, the more exposure there is to the details surrounding both the event, itself,  and the current effort to gain a political advantage using this event.  

For example,  we have this memo and its translation.   Obviously,  Obama made it clear, in the memo,  there was to be no risk to him,  personally, as the president of the United States,  and so,  he orders,  "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands "   As you can plainly see,  Admiral  McRavens is both the commander of the raid and Obama’s excuse should things go south.  So, if McRaven was in charge,  how can Obama make this shameless claim:    I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’  and why NO MENTION of Admiral McRaven???? 

In the video (click on link to see video  jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2012/04/we-wonder-will-obama-make-apology-for.html )   made to “celebrate” the bin Laden killing,  we have Bill Clinton bragging about the grave risk taken by Obama.  Besides the point,  above,  understand that Bill Clinton talking about courage in the face of political risk (he had 3 chances to kill bin Laden before 9/11 and refused each opportunity) is tantamount to Michael Moore writing a weight loss book and sending it to Elena Kagan for review. 

While cheering the death of bin Laban,  we have to ask ourselves this question,  “Was the killing of bin Laden the reason Obama sent troops into Afghanistan?”  Surely not,  But Obama charges that Mitt Romney would  not have made the same call (see Romney's 2007 comments below in "Notes").   The context of Romney's statement,  with which  Obama takes umbrage,  had to do with the  sovereignty of another nation's state, but more than Romney's concern,  I see a serious problem with waging a war for the single purpose of killing bin Ladan -----  so,  we ask the question again, “Did Obama risk the lives of hundreds of young men and women in the hope of finding and killing Osama bin Laban? ”  In view of the Romney criticism,  I must conclude the worst as to Obama's  motivations and, if the case,  what a pathetically self-serving decision [to invade Pakistan and kill bin Ladan]  it was.   

Finally,  more and more we are remembering Obama's childish rush to the first open mic,  naming the Special Ops force (Navy Seal Team 6) responsible for the assault.  

No one thought this was a good idea, at the time,  Everyone thought it put Seal Team 6 in great harm.  And,  sure enough,  three months later,  a transport helicopter was shot down,  killing 38 Americans on board, 23 of whom were Seal Team 6 members.  I regard this as a criminal act on the part of Obama and see no reason to amend my point of view.   He has proven to be the worst kind of military leader,  someone willing to politicize military risk and loss of life for the sake of personal gain.  And, here,  I thought that Richard Nixon was the only one capable of  such  treasonous leadership.

See the comments below made by members of the Navy Seals  - you will not find this anywhere in the "major" media.  

Notes: 

Romney's 2007 comments:  

It’s wrong for a person running for president of the United States to get on TV and say we’re going to go into your country unilaterally. Of course America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interest of America. But we don’t go out and say “ladies and gentleman of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country [and] we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out”. We don’t say those things, we keep our options quiet.

Obama's response to Romney: 

“As far as my personal role and what other folks [i.e. Romney] would do, I just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements whether or not they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden.”

Navy Seals speak out about Obama use of their work and his campaign video:  

From the Daily Mail, we have this comment from former members of the Navy Seals.  No mention of this in the Marxist media, by the way.  We had to go to the UK for the story:

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
‘I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.’
Keep reading…

Gallup has nothing but good news for the Patriot Nation.

Two thoughts:  first,  I am not the only one who issues (on occasion) with verb tense and typos.  Secondly,  after just three weeks of campaigning at half speed,  Romney has closed the gap between  he and Obama.  If I wrote  this differently for the sake of impact, I would say, "After nearly three years of campaigning at the expense of millions of dollars and the help of a fully complicit media,  Obama has managed to tie the newly charged GOP candidate.  


From Gallup:  These are the results when registered voters are asked: "Suppose the presidential election were held today. If Barack Obama were the Democratic Party's candidate and Mitt Romney were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you vote for Barack Obama, the Democrat or Mitt Romney, the Republican?" Those who are undecided are further asked if they lean more toward Obama or Romney and their leanings are incorporated into the results. Each five-day rolling average is based on telephone interviews with approximately 2,200 registered voters; Margin of error is ±3 percentage points.


Update: the worst news possible is the measure of fiscal conservatives versus fiscally liberal folks  ---   43% to 13%  (Rasmussen.) 

May Day is tomorrow and the socialist/communist cabal is planning demonstrations world wide. We are about to see if "we" need to be worried or not. Here is their agenda [They are "Occupy, btw]

from Wall Street Occupy. 

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

This document was accepted by the NYC General Assembly on September 29, 2011  

(Note and I am not using hyperbole here;  this "General Assembly"  could not have been more than 10 individuals at the time. The notation, itself,  is a transparent effort to convince the reader that she is reading something for which there is mass approval.   Today,  there are no more than 15,000 Occupiers,  nationwide  -  blog editor)   

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

[As you read the following, ask yourself this:  are these misfits rebelling against the conservative nation or Obama?  Their agenda seems to indict his governance more than any other level of leadership - blog editor]  

§  They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

§  They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

§  They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

§  They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

§  They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

§  They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

§  They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

§  They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

§  They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

§  They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

§  They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

§  They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

§  They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

§  They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

§  They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

§  They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

§  They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

§  They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

§  They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

§  They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

§  They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

§  They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

§  They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

******

The following words were crafted as the slogan for the first May Day demonstration in 1886 ("red" seems to be an appropriate color).  

May Day - A Brief History

Workingmen to Arms!

War to the Palace, Peace to the Cottage, and Death to LUXURIOUS IDLENESS.

The wage system is the only cause of the World's misery. It is supported by the rich classes, and to destroy it, they must be either made to work or DIE.

One pound of DYNAMITE is better than a bushel of BALLOTS!

MAKE YOUR DEMAND FOR EIGHT HOURS with weapons in your hands to meet the capitalistic bloodhounds, police, and militia in proper manner. 

(Source: Industrial Workers of the World - May 1, 1886 - the nation's first May Day celebration).  

The happy idea of using a proletarian holiday celebration as a means to attain the eight-hour day was first born in Australia. The workers there decided in 1856 to organize a day of complete stoppage together with meetings and entertainment as a demonstration in favor of the eight-hour day. The day of this celebration was to be April 21. At first, the Australian workers intended this only for the year 1856. But this first celebration had such a strong effect on the proletarian masses of Australia, enlivening them and leading to new agitation, that it was decided to repeat the celebration every year.

In fact, what could give the workers greater courage and faith in their own strength than a mass work stoppage which they had decided themselves? What could give more courage to the eternal slaves of the factories and the workshops than the mustering of their own troops? Thus, the idea of a proletarian celebration was quickly accepted and, from Australia, began to spread to other countries until finally it had conquered the whole proletarian world.

Source:  Marxist.org

What has to happen before "we" are debt free as a nation - in other words, why "debt free" is never going to happen.

Best show on the Tube but the worst
political idea of all time, and the Democrats
think it is a great idea  -  in fact, under Obama,
our nation is having to deal with this crap for
the first time in our history.  

<<<<< Best show on the Tube but the worst political idea of all time

The latest battle over student loan interest rates is,   once again,  all about spending and the increasing national debt.  In a word, The Democrats don’t care about the National Debt and the Establishment Republicans only pretend to care.  

You should know that, for the first time in our history,  a political party - the Democrats - are running against a "balanced budget."  They not only oppose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which would order Congress on this matter and assure a stable future,  they have no intentions of cutting spending to a point that does not increase debt.  How could they?   We overspend our annual [tax] income by a full 42% each and every year.  In simple terms,  this means that for every dollar your kid spends,  she has to borrow 42 cents from you to pay her bill or buy her next toy.   

The new mantra (beginning with Obama) includes a love affair with the myopic idiocy of  "fairness" when  "legislative responsibility" and "societal survival" should be the exciting themes of the day.    No one cares about any of this in Greece and look what is happening to that country.  Many believe that Greece is a predictor of all socialistically  permissive societies including ours.   With the advent of the Anarchist Movement during the Obama years (Occupy and Democrat lead allies),   we now know that violence in the streets will be the response to any effort to bring domestic spending under control - so our politicians continue to play their games and the rest of use continue stock up with guns and ammunition.  

If it were not for the TEA party influence,  no one would be talking, seriously,  about what is happening to our nation via the single issue of indebtedness.  The sad truth of the matter is this: we owe so much money that paying the debt down to “Zero” is totally out of the question.  Don’t get me wrong.  I am a “debt hater” and I support a "balanced budget amendment"  to the US Constitution.    I am simply admitting to the obvious.  We, as a nation,  have a debt that will never be decreased,  much less, paid off.  Heck, the interest on the national debt currently costs us $494 billion per year or 4.9 trillion in ten years.  You are a dupe if you believe America will ever pay its outstanding public debt. 

Think about it . . . . . . . paleeeezzz.  Everyone has a fit the moment our legislators (I.e. Paul Ryan) start talking about 4 or 5 trillion dollars in cuts.  Correct ???   

In fact,  no one is talking about more than 4 or 5 trillion in cuts.    Understand that anytime,  anyone, is talking about “trillions,”  they are talking about “10 years” in the same breath.  So, when the fiscal hero, Paul Ryan,   speaks of  "5 trillion in cuts,"  he is only talking about  neutralizing our national interest  payment.   We are still overspending by 42%.  

Sidebar:  Indeed,  if we held the interest payment to a “sum zero game” per the Ryan cuts,   saw our GDP grow at the rate of 5 to 8 percent annually  (as it did under Reagan),  and held new spending increases to two or three percent per year,    in time,  our debt would vanish  -  understanding that “in time” might mean 50 to 100 years from now  --  but what does an educated Okie know?  

Unless  a formulaic definition as described in my "sidebar," or something similar,    is institutionalized in the form of a Constitutional amendment and prescribed  legislative function,  our politicians will not continue any long term, fiscally responsible agenda,  judging from the historical record.  

And,  as long as a substantial number of big spending politicians are running around,  the only alternative "solution" is a total melt down resulting  in a second and violent civil war, with an outcome that is wholly unpredictable.  And that last statement is precisely why a full-blown civil war must be avoid . . . . . .  but not at all cost.  Freedom is something that remains worth dying for and if you disagree,  maybe you should have a talk with some of our soldiers or break into my home,  late at night,  to steal one of my three computers you don't own.   

At any rate, there is no doubt that we, as a nation,  are at critical mass and  it is "critical" because this nation does not have enough people who care about fiscal responsibility.  "Fairness" as used by the Slickmeister,  is only an excuse for more spending and we all know it.  Sadly, his "fairness agenda" is the open door for so much more, however  -  all of it sinister and none of it in line with the Founding Theories of this nation.  


Update and related article(s):


Occupy plans day of violence and unrest on "May Day," typically a socialist/communist day of celebration for the "laborer."   

Obama has decided that we do not need no stinking missile defense system. Anyone think that is a good idea ---- besides the Russians and Chinese and Nor Koreans and the Iranians?

Prolegonenon:  two of our most critical failures in the war on terror are detailed in this post.  Understand that when "class warfare" replaces plans to prevent nuclear warfare,  we are all so screwed.  


War on Terror Failure #1
Does anyone remember  that Barry Obama took down the CIA's interrogation units almost immediately,  after assuming the throne?  Yes he did.  He had decided to punish the CIA for the waterboardings they performed on three murdering terrorist, four years before Obama took office.  So he decided to bring the terrorist back to our homeland,  interrogate them here using the FBI,  using civil interrogation tactics, and then, put  these murdering swine on trial in a criminal court. . . .   and, so,  the interrogation dismantling process began.  In place of  CIA interrogation processes,  Obama planned to institute several HIG units or "High value Interrogation Groups" and place them under the authority of the FBI.  We would become a humane nation,  once again,  and all of us the safer for Obama's efforts.  


Problem:  four years later,  only the "dismantling part" is completed.  We have no trained HIG units in place and, more importantly,  no freaking  terrorist to interrogate.  (Does any think this funny besides me?).   The TSA has not caught a single,  honest to gawd, terrorist in 11 years of operations and we don't bring any of these murderers back from overseas.  Turns out the HIG's were nothing more than Obama blather
. 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates (center)
and other officials inspect missiles housed
underground at Fort Greely in Alaska on
June 1. The missile defense system in the
works in Alaska is similar to the plan that
the Bush administration had proposed for
Europe — which President Obama
reversed on Thursday.  Three months
later, our genius president canceled
this system and has replaced it with
absolutely nothing.  

War on Terror Failure #2

Under Bush,  a missile defense system was being created in the Alaska.  But Obama stopped that project about the same time he decided to unilaterally end the missile defense systems being installed in Czechoslovakia and Poland via treatises made between those countries and the US under George Bush's effective leadership.  Now,  four years later,  there is nothing standing in the place of the missile defense systems Obama trashed in  either Europe or the United States. Here, in this country, we are as open to nuclear attack as we have ever been, and more so.   

So the next time you start thinking that Obama has a handle on terror because he has an anonymous "death by drone" policy in place,  think again.  Understand that we no longer have the high priority goal of capturing and interrogating the Islamic murderers.  As a consequence,  we have no clue what they are going to do next,  where they will do it and by what means. More than this,  with another four years under Obama,  this country will be defenseless against a legion of enemies.  


All thanks to the Obama cadrae of political theorists.    Be sure to re-elect this bunch of misfits.  We we will all feel so much safer.   


After notes: 


1. Missile Defense discussed in Roll Call.


2.  NPR writes about the September,2009 decision to 
refuse continuation of the Alaskan missile defense system. 

Obama jokes about Palin but the real joke is the fact that Obama is nothing like any of his predecessors.

<<<<<<< Post theme: he ain't cool no more.

President Obama on Palin: What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?  ‘A pit bull is delicious’   

With the words in our headline,  the Master of the Classless Nation,  scored more points with his Hollywood constituency over the weekend.  But,  is this all he has left, to chase after "cool" and invent one character attack after another?  We review his campaign, to date and show why rhetorical gimmickry is at the center of his bid for re-election . . . . . its all that he has left to say.     

Can a man look any more cool than Mr. Tough
Guy,  Barry Hussein Obama?  

Take a look as his 2012 campaign, to date.  In a word,  we are looking at nothing but "small ball" on steroids.  No more promises.  No more Greek pillars and idiot lines like "now is the time the earth begins to cool and the oceans begin to recede" (Germany 2008).  No more campaigning as if he was the international president of the world.  No more video's of kids singing Christian songs of praise re-written using Obama's name instead of Christ's.    Not a word about uniting the nation or ending partisanship.  When was the last time he gave an international speech to the Muslim world?  And, on the good side,  when was the last time he apologized to our enemies? 

Instead,  "Obama 2012" is a campaign that has lashed out at the Catholic Church,  the middle class white worker,  stay-at-home moms  and private citizens who donate to the opposition.  

He has negotiated with congress only once during his four years,  on the occasion of the defeat of the Keystone Pipeline bill. 

He is the first president in history to preside over a Democrat Congress so one-sided,  it did not need Republican attendance for so much as a quorum.  For all of 2009,  the GOP was completely and utterly irrelevant, legislatively speaking.  Not one GOP amendment made it out of House committee and onto the House floor for a vote, another historical first. 

Obama is the first president in history to have not one,  but two presidential budgets fail without getting a single vote of support from his own party members;  a 97 to Nothing vote against his budget in the 2011 Senate and a 414 to Nothing vote in the 2012 House of Representatives.  

He is the first president to not know how to pronounce "corps" in the phrase  "Marine corpsman."  Trust me,  there is a big difference between a Marine corpsman and a Marine "corpse."  And he gets it wrong three times in the same speech --  hardly a "slip of the lip."

He is the first president not to know how many states there are in the Union.  


He is the first to believe that tuning up our cars would resolve our Middle East oil dependency.  

He is the first president to use Executive Order to legislate federal restructuring and federal law defeated in Congress by his own party.  

He is the first president to unilaterally violate two treatises with foreign governments  (the missile defense treatises with Czechoslovakia and Poland).  


Under his presidency,  the United States has NO missile defense system,  itself;  did you know that?  Do you give a care?  

He is the first president to wage war against "freedom of religion" as prescribed in the First Amendment and the protections of the conscience clause (cf. Catholic World News). 


He is the first leader of a party that intends to rewrite the free speech portions of that amendment (I refer to Pelosi's statements of two weeks ago on regulating free speech).  

He is the first president to use the regulatory agencies under his control to restructure and add to the Central Government.  

He has done more to fashion the Central Government as the enemy of its free constituency than any president in history.   

He is the first president to wage war on the American populace via anarchy and vandelism (the Occupy movement),  sheer thuggery (the AFL-CIO and the SEIU),  the Department of Justice with its first racist AG, and alliances the likes of the Nation of Islam (Louis Farrakhan),  the New Black Panthers and those who openly wish harm to the white man (Al Sharpton,  Maxine Waters, Spike Lee and a host of black, anti-colonial leadership    

He is our first anti-colonial president (note:  there is more meaning to this single point than all the above combined) .  By "anti-colonial," I do not mean to iclude any sense of the term "anti-imperialism."  For me,  they are not the same, at all.  By "anti-colonial"   I mean to imply that Obama rejects American colonial history and its Constitutional outgrowth,  as being a part of his cherished American history.  If I fashioned a parity with another phrase,  I would use "anti-Constitutional" in the same breath as "anti-colonial."   Al Sharpton once described the 10th Amendment ("states rights") as the "white man's amendment."  All reactionary Blacks rejected early American history as being "theirs" because of the fact that the early black slaves were not considered  fully human and,  hence protected by the Constitution.  It is a fact,  that, in that since,  early American history worked against the black community. What anti-colonial blacks refuse to admit is the reality that the Civil War was more about binding the Constitution onto the entire population than any other single issue.   What anti-colonial blacks refuse to recognize is the fact that,  from the very beginning,  there were those who believed the words of the Constitution applied to all peoples within the American experience and that beneficial changed has occurred precisely because of the wording of the US Constitution.  

Point of post: to demonstrate that Mr. Cool ain't cool no more, but, rather, he is a menace to all who cherish founding principles and the colonials' thirst for freedom in general and freedom from religious structuring by a central government, in particular.  

We wonder: Will Obama make apology for identifying "Navy Seal Team 6" to the terrorist world, setting that Special Ops force up for retaliation?

In an absolutely shameless display of demagoguery, Obama is running [for the second time around]  a one minute, 30 second  production piece made nearly a year ago,  in a desperate effort to validate his existence as a man and rogue president.  I give him credit for nothing because of his motivation for the killing ----  pure D politics.  

If you bother to watch this piece of political trash,  try to remember that Bill Clinton, bragging about Obama's courage in making the decision to approve the killing.    had three opportunities to kill bin Laden before the Twin Towers,  and found an excuse for ignoring each opportunity. We are driven to the question: "How would Bill Clinton know anything about political courage?"   

You might remember that it was Bill's  little "yes woman,"  Jamie Gorelick,  who isolated each federal intelligence gathering agency from the other, during his presidency,   preventing each from sharing vital information that could have prevented 9/11.  So egregious an act of ignorance was the Gorelick/Clinton decision,  that the walls between agencies were taken down after the attacks on 9/11.   

Add to your newly found remembrance,  the fact that Osama bin Laden was completely marginalized as a leader of world wide terror,  his plans and dreams of a second 9/11 not withstanding.  Understand that he did not orchestrate another major terrorist attack after 9/11,  choosing, rather,  to scurry about,  like a common household roach, protecting his own life,  afraid to die for the "cause" he claimed to be from allah.  If his death justifies the lose of 1,700 lives in Afghanistan,  well,  there is something grossly wrong with that assessment, something that goes far beyond informed military leadership. 

And,  finally,  we must never forget,  that Obama,  in his childish haste to take credit for the killing,  ran to the closest mic and gave the terrorist world,  the name of the Special Ops unit that killed the iconic Osama bin Laden.  Three months later,  20 members from Navy Seal Team 6 were among the 38 killed when troop transfer helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan.  The terrorist world claim "revenge" for Osama and the American media went into hiding.  Barack Hussein is deserving of nothing short of impeachment and a military trial,  for this circumstance.  If he had kept his socialist mouth shut,  "revenge" would have been off the table.  

Are we the only one's in the Cosmos? I bet we are and here is why.

Remember all that talk,  20 years ago,  of "billions and billions" of habitable planets?  Life on another planet was not only a possibility,  but a mathematical probability.

Haystack 37-meter radio telescope
with a cutaway view of it in its radome.

With all that in mind,  I never understood why, if there is life on other planets and "they" are intelligent enough to communicate via some sort of technology,  why did we not "hear them talking" the moment we started "listening" with our radio/telescope?  I mean,  if there are billion and billions of colonies "out there,"  surely we are not the most advanced or the most intelligent or the oldest of all life forms in the the  universe.  But,  as far as picking up intelligent "conversation" with those radio telescopes we have positioned around the world,  that  has not proven to be anymore a monument to intelligent conversation than the chatter we hear at a "yo-mama" concert.

And,  after all these years of looking and hoping and dreaming,  scientists have found only four possible planets.  The closest is one called 667Cc.  It is four times the size of earth,  but is the right distance from its sun, so,  of course,  there is life somewhere on that planet, right??  

I know, the thinking is this: we need to find younger planets just in case our system goes up in smoke.  "Humans" need somewhere to go when the Sun decides to light things up,  in our solar system.

Problem:  667Cc is 22 light years from here.  And that's the good news.  Some star systems are billions of light years from Earth.  Good news is always balanced out by bad news,  it seems, and that is true in this instance.

In case you are planning on traveling to 667Cc anytime soon,  you had better pack a mean lunch.  Understand that a "light year" is 5,865,896,000,000 or [in this case] 5.865 trillion miles from here, and that is one light year.   If we could travel at a mile a second (3,600 miles per hour) and not run out of fuel,  our new home-away-from-home would be millions of years from here.

Which brings us to another issue  -  no telling what we would look like when we got there. Let's assume the fantasy of evolution as being true and tie that to the apparent "fact" that Mankind as we know "him" to be,  is just 145,000 years old. Of course,  I do not believe in evolutionary trends for species larger than a centimeter,  but most scientists do.  My next question, then,  is an important one:  million years from now,  what life form would step out onto that New World's stage?   If we are going to look anything like my neighbor's mother-in-law,  it ain't worth the expense, trust me.

Point of post:  if the Sun decides to die,  we are all sooooo screwed and we are all so very much alone.

A 2 minute refresher course on the presidental annual budget, how it works and what it includes. Great brief on the subject; too bad the Democrats no longer believe in a formal budget or the processes that give us a budget. Its been three years, you know !!!

2008 Campaign versus the 2012 Campaign

Video:The President's Annual Budget Request

By  Robert Longley

Each year, the President of the United States submit to Congress a detailed budget request for the coming federal fiscal year on or before the first Monday in February. Here is a guide to the process of this federal budget request.

If you have two minutes, click on the link and watch -- or read the transcript

http://video.about.com/usgovinfo/The-President-s-Annual-Budget-Request.htm

Transcript: The President's Annual Budget Request

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires that the President of the United States submit to Congress, on or before the first Monday in February of each year, a detailed budget request for the coming federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1.

Functions of President's Federal Budget Request

Prepared by the president and the president's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the president's annual budget request performs three key functions in the annual federal budget process:

·         The presidential budget request informs Congress of the president's vision of the three basic elements of U.S. fiscal policy: (1) how much money the government should spend on public needs and programs; (2) how much money the government should take in through taxes and other sources of revenue; and (3) how large a deficit or surplus will result.

·         The presidential budget request tells Congress how much money the president believes should be spent on the various Cabinet-level federal functions. Within each function, the president's budget request must establish requested spending levels for smaller groups of related programs known as "budget accounts."

·         It can also be used to inform Congress of any changes in federal spending or tax policy the president intends to recommend.

How the Federal Budget is Spent

Typically, about two-thirds of all annual federal spending goes to permanently enacted "entitlement" programs. The other one-third of annual federal spending goes to optional or "discretionary" programs or projects that must have their spending renewed or "reauthorized" by Congress every fiscal year. In the next phase of the annual budget process, the House and Senate Budget Committees will hold hearings on the president's budget request. In the hearings, administration officials are called to testify and justify their specific budget requests.

House and Senate Pass Final Federal Budget

Based on the hearings, the Budget Committees will prepare a draft of the congressional budget resolution. After being amended by the full House and Senate, the congressional budget resolution will go to a joint House-Senate conference committee, where any differences will be resolved. The conference report on the annual congressional budget resolution will then be debated and passed by both houses of Congress.

End notes and acknowledgments: 

Robert Longley

• Email Me
• Headlines
• Forum

Follow me on:

• Facebook
• Twitter

Robert has logged over 26 years of experience in municipal government in Texas and California cities. He has also served as About's Guide to U.S. Government since October 1997.