Hanoi Jane Celebrated Shooting Down of B-52's by Communist North Vietnamese

If ever anyone wonders why so many of us Vietnam Veterans still harbor ill will against this woman, a excerpt from a speech given sometime in the early 1970's at U.C. Berkeley where students in attendance applaud her claim of 34 American B-52's being shot down by the Communist North Vietnamese. That is a potential of 170 American Servicemen killed.

MARCH 30: REMEMBER "WELCOME HOME VIETNAM VETERANS DAY"

Submitted by REES LLOYD

"Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day" observances will be held formally in many areas of the country today, March 30, informally in many other areas, and totally ignored in many if not most other areas, except in posts of veterans’ services organization like The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other VSO's.

The U.S. House and Senate have by resolutions recognized March 30 as Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day annually. The observance began at the grass roots, as Americans began to remember and regret the way that Vietnam Veterans, who served honorably when their country called, were treated when they came home.

Many returning troops were vilified. Leftist demonstrators burned the American Flag and marched under the Viet Cong Flag and large photos of Ho Chi Minh, the leader of Communist Vietnam. Troops were called "baby killers," "war criminals," and were sometimes insulted and spit upon by self-righteous demonstrators of proclaiming their love of peace with snarls, raised fists, and epithets.

Even heroes in Vietnam like Tommy Franks, who later would become General Tommy Franks and serve as allied commander in the war against terrorism in Iraq, was advised when he came home from Vietnam not to wear his uniform, as were most troops, due to the hatred that had been manufactured not just against the war, but against those sent to fight it.

The political atmosphere was poisoned by people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda. The wealthy and privileged daughter of movie star Henry Fonda, Jane, who first became famous taking her clothes off in the movie “Barbarella," infamously aided and abetted the communist enemy by using her movie starlet celebrity to travel to Hanoi where, among other things, she posed with a big smile and a steel helmet at the helm of a communist anti-aircraft gun. Meanwhile, Americans were dying in battle, and P.O.W. pilots shot down by such guns like the legendary Bud Day, Admiral James Stockdale, Admiral Jeremiah Denton, John McCain, Leo Thorsness, Robbie Robinson, Everett Alvarez, Jr., the longest serving of all, and so many more, were being terribly tortured in the "Hanoi Hilton" by the communists to whom charming then-communist Jane gave fond, smiling, and self-righteous aid and comfort.

John Kerry, in his short four months on a Swift Boat in Vietnam, bragged that he would be the "second JFK from Massachusetts," and brought along his own camcorder to film staged acts of daring do for the camera and voters back in liberal Mass. Kerry, as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against The War, infamously gave self-promoting false testimony before the U.S. Congress of witnessing atrocities by American troops in Vietnam. That testimony, utterly false, garnered him national and international publicity.

However, when his successor in command of the Swift Boat, John E. O'Neil, outraged at Kerry's lies, repeatedly and publicly challenged Kerry to provide names, dates, places, and other evidence that could verify Kerry's charges against other troops, Kerry was able to provide absolutely no evidence.

After falsely tainting those who served in Vietnam as war criminals who committed atrocities, Kerry whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by his self-serving opportunism and political ambition, made his political career by citing his service in Vietnam, and hoping his disgusting false testimony would be forgotten. When Kerry became the Democrat Party nominee to challenge George Bush for President in 2004, his campaign, among other things, searched out and bought up every copy they could find of the book celebrating Kerry's anti-war antics and testimony denigrating Vietnam troops before Congress.

Faced with the prospect of Kerry actually becoming commander-in-chief, John O'Neil co-authored with Jerome Corsi the best-selling book: "Unfit For Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. O'Neil and Corsi detailed Kerry’s despicable, self-serving words and deed. Kerry and the Democrats condemned "Unfit For Command,” but were unable to refute the facts that O'Neil and Corsi exposed.

Although posturing as one who should be elected because he served, Kerry then zealously refused to make public his military service record with the same adamant refusal that current President Obama has refused to release his college records at Occidental College and even his birth certificate. Kerry blamed his loss to George Bush in major part on the Swift Boaters revelations. To this day Democrat leaders wring their hands and bemoan that Kerry was "Swift Boated." Yet, also to this day, they have been unable to refute the facts alleged against Kerry in "Unfit For Command." If you think that "Unfit For Command" was just a scurrilous hit piece full of rumor and innuendo, then I urge you to take the challenge: Read "Unfit For Command,” and then attempt to refute it. Kerry couldn't refute the facts asserted, because the facts are true; and Kerry is "unfit for command."

Indeed, not for nothing have the North Vietnamese Communists placed large photos of John Kerry and Jane Fonda in prominent display in their "War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City" in an exhibit honoring "heroes" who had helped them "win the war against the United States."

The top communist General Giap has admitted that the communists would have collapsed after their defeat in the famed Tet Offensive, but for the fact of the acts of the so-called peace movement and the media which turned Americans against the war. Among those who provided such saving support for the communists were, Kerry, Fonda, and the media icon Walter Cronkite. The avuncular television anchor Cronkite, touted as the "most trusted man in America," misperceived Tet as a victory of the communists. When Cronkite and publicly broadcast his opinion after Tet that the war could not be won, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly said that Cronkite's broadcast statements, no matter how in accurate, meant that the war was "lost." Giap said that the communists realized that all they had to do was to hold on long enough for the communists, socialists, and other supporters of the Vietnamese communists in the peace movement to turn the American people against the war. That happened. Congress cut off funding for the war in 1975, and the communists took Saigon, soon renamed Ho Chi Minh City.

SSG Robert Pilk, KIA June 19, 1970

It has been written that Vietnam War was one in which American troops won every battle, but lost the war. Adm. Jeremiah Denton, seven-years, seven-months a P.O.W. in Vietnam, second only to Everett Alvarez in time served as a P.O.W., strongly refutes the contention that the American military "lost" the Vietnam War.

"The American military did not lose the Vietnam War -- Congress lost the war, when it refused to fund the South Vietnamese forces to resist the communists," he states. He makes a forceful argument concerning what was done, and what needs to be done, in the new epilogue to his book, "When Hell Was In Session," detailing the inhumanity of the communists who unmercifully tortured American prisoners of war in complete violation of the Geneva Accords while Kerry, Fonda, Cronkite, and the leftist so-called peace movement gave the communists aid and comfort. WorldNetDaily Books has issued a new edition of Adm. Denton's book.

Maj. General Patrick H. Brady (USA, ret.), a "dust off" helicopter ambulance pilot who rescued over 5,000 wounded in more than 2,500 combat missions and received the Medal of Honor in Vietnam, agrees with Admiral Denton's assessment, and, in his book details what was ignored during and after the Vietnam War: What Gen. Brady calls the unprecedented "humanitarian acts of American troops in Vietnam."

"No warriors have committed more humanitarian acts during war, and not just after war -- building medical facilities and providing medical care, building schools and other community facilities for the Vietnamese civilians, committing countless acts of kindness --than did the men and women of the American armed forces in Vietnam. That is America's victory in Vietnam," states Gen. Brady. He details those humanitarian acts of those who fought in Vietnam, generally unknown to Americans in the Vietnam era and in this era, in his Book, "DEAD MEN FLYING: Victory in Viet Nam--The Legend of Dust Off, America’s Battlefield Angels."

"The irony is," Gen. Brady adds, "is that while the men and women of the American military committed more humanitarian acts in war than in any other war, no Americans who have served when our country called them to serve in war have been so shamed, degraded, vilified, when they came home not to a grateful nation, but a nation ungrateful for their service and sacrifice. That is a continuing shame."

Some 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War. Many more suffered wounds, some of them terrible, life-changing wounds. Many, many continue to suffer today from the effects of Agent Orange, or post traumatic stress syndrome. As the saying goes, some gave all, all gave some.

Starting from a grassroots movement, March 30 is now being served in many areas, but not all, as "Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day." Take a moment. Call your local American Legion, VFW, or other veterans’ organization and find out what observances are being held.

Or just take a moment to thank a Vietnam veteran, and speak in a belated attitude of gratitude, words too long delayed, but much appreciated: "Welcome home."

[Rees Lloyd is a longtime civil rights attorney, a Vietnam-era veteran, and a veterans activist.]

Best Buds

Lew, 1969 An Son Vietnam

Small Church, midway between An Khe and Pleiku

April 1970, Sapper Attack, An Khe

Lane Army Heliport, An Son Vietnam

The Wagons Are Circling, But it Isn’t Media Bias

Once again, Southwest Washington is seeing an unexpected resignation of an elected official under cloudy circumstances. Democrat 49th legislative district representative Jim Jacks abruptly tendered his resignation Friday, March 25, 2011 citing, “personal reasons he did not want to publicly discuss about the details.”

Given the scandalous resignations in the past, such a statement automatically raises red flags and a few eyebrows, you would think. Not so with the Columbian and other newspapers it appears. The Columbian took it a little further than did the Seattle Times, the Olympian and other news agencies in the state such as KOMO News. The Columbian chose to portray Jacks as a “dedicated family man,” choosing a 3 year old file photo of him showing his small daughters his desk in Olympia from back in 2009, while others simply used file photos of him from his legislative web page that rapidly disappeared almost as soon as his resignation was announced.

All articles portrayed this as a surprise resignation, seemingly from out of the blue. But, KOMO News quoted 49th legislative district Senator Craig Pridemore, a fellow Democrat saying, “his resignation had been discussed for a couple of days,” while house majority leader Pat Sullivan said, “He said he needed to take care of some things at home, There's not much more to say about it. We supported his decision.” KOMO added, “Sullivan refused to divulge any more details.”

Fellow Democrat49th legislative district representative Jim Moeller, who also “declined” to discuss reasons behind the sudden resignation “out of respect for his privacy,” said, “I think he will be sharing that publicly when the time is right for him,” to the Oregonian.

What about all of his constituents, who donated funds to him, supported him, campaigned for him and voted for him? Asking about them being owed an explanation of such a sudden resignation in the middle of the legislative session elicited a comment of “Jack owes you squat!” from a Mike O’Connor on facebook and “if there is anything inappropriate, it will come out in due course. But for now, butt out and let Jim Jacks take care of his family” from an anonymous commenter calling themselves cwajga on the Columbian article.

Even the Columbian’s newly selected social media coordinator, Matt Wastradowski cautioned “we won't entertain any more speculation on this story from this point on. Please refrain from speculating in the comment box. Any comments along those lines will be removed” clarified to “If there is found to be any wrongdoing pertaining to Jacks’ duties as a public official, we will certainly write about them. But there have been no confirmed wrongdoings, and we won’t print rumors. And we won’t tolerate them on our website.”

Recalling how others were treated in the pages of the Columbian just a couple years ago, this struck me as odd, considering how often editor Lou Brancaccio opines in his Saturday column about how “middle of the road” they are and saying just this morning in his latest column, Keep us close. Very close, “Essentially, we try not to be anybody’s friend or anybody’s enemy.”

While they are all too ready to “respect the privacy” of Jim Jacks and his family, what about their coverage of the scandalous resignation of Republican Richard Curtis in 2007? Or, the embarrassing conduct of Republican Jim Dunn around the same time?

Besides naming Curtis’ scandal and subsequent resignation the top story of 2007, the Columbian published some 14 articles in the span of less than 5 days covering his scandal, even to the point of interviewing citizens of La Center, where Curtis lived, November 2, 2007 and headlined “La Center ponders politician’s actions.”

In regards to Jim Dunn’s embarrassing gaffe towards a female legislator, the Columbian treated us to 9 articles over a much longer period, almost a month with such titles as November 7, 2007 “In our view: An Embarrassment,”November 9, 2007 “Dunn’s gaffe no surprise to insiders” to November 23, 2007 “Dunn’s woes: Witch hunt or just desserts?” to name just 3.

Both Curtis & Dunn were featured in acerbic, Republican hating editorial page editor John Laird’s December 16, 2007 Column “Of scandals, obesity and leather lungs.”

October 29, 2007 the Columbian ran the article, “Curtis denies wrongdoing, says he is not gay,” where we were told Curtis, approached by Columbian editor Lou Brancaccio said to Lou, “I am not gay. I have not had sex with a guy,” in regards to word coming out of Spokane that same day of an investigation into extortion allegations by a male prostitute towards Curtis.

October 30, 2007 brought the article, “Curtis denies sexual encounter” from the Columbian were in the first sentence we read, “State Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, caught in a statewide media frenzy over an ongoing extortion investigation in Spokane, said Monday he did nothing wrong. Curtis denied a report that he was involved in a sexual encounter with another man and emphatically said he is not gay.”

Again, October 30, 2007 and apparently later in the day we saw from the Columbian “Police report sheds new light on Curtis encounter” where we were told, “State Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, admitted to having sex with a man he met at an adult video store in Spokane last week, according to a police report released Tuesday afternoon. The police report offers a damning and far different version of events from the brief account Curtis gave to The Columbian Monday, one that seems likely to threaten Curtis’ political future.”

Curtis, who was also married with two daughters, like Jim Jacks, was spared no intrusions, granted no rights to privacy for his family and him as efforts unfolded to expose his scandalous behavior, leading to his resignation on October 31, 2007.

There were no calls to temper speculation by commenter’s. There didn’t have to be, the Columbian was doing it all until he was forced to resign in disgrace. They even went so far as to interview openly gay Democrat 49th legislative district representative Jim Moeller about Curtis’ sexual orientation. I credit Moeller with saying he “has never heard any questions about Curtis' sexual orientation.”

Approaching Republican 18th legislative district senator Joe Zarelli drew the response of, “[I’m] not going to jump to any conclusions until I know more,” and Curtis needs to “come say your piece and then do your thing,” unlike with Jacks were we see no call to come clean from the Columbian or Democratic Party Officials.

After Curtis tendered his resignation, Editor Lou Brancaccio wrote his November 3, 2007 weekly Press Talk column, titling it “Why is the Curtis saga a news story?” Brancaccio wrote, “State Rep. Richard Curtis got caught. Yes, with his pants down. Literally. But why should someone's personal life be news? After all, what does one's personal life have to do with one's job?”

Good question Lou. I did not see any answer in the 14 other articles the paper ran digging up dirt and all but stalking him before and after he resigned.

Leading up to justification for all of the coverage of Curtis that week, Brancaccio said, “So when the Curtis story began to break, we all had to see what we had at play here.”

But, no effort today with Jim Jacks to “see what we had at play here?”

The Capital Campus is awash with word of Jacks inappropriate conduct of “repeated sexual harassment episodes, inappropriate physical contact and all hours “drunken calls” to at least one female staffer.” If I and Clark County Politics are receiving word from those we know in Olympia, is it not logical to believe the Columbian is hearing the same and possibly worse?

Given the nature of the sudden resignation and removal of Jacks name, removing his web site and all but blotting out any mention of him in the legislature, why is there no want to “see what we have at play here” from a supposedly “unbiased newspaper?”

As the Washington State Wire puts it, “State Rep. Jim Jacks abruptly resigns from the Legislature for reasons no one seems to understand. But you know it's serious. They've already taken his name off the vote-board in the House, and he's disappeared as if he was never there in the first place.”

It doesn’t appear all that serious to the Columbian and other news sources around the state, all of whom seem to believe Jacks is entitled to privacy that Richard Curtis wasn’t.

Perhaps it is indicative of what Pia Hansen said in the November 3, 2007 Spokane Spokesman-Review, “It is not about being gay or closeted… what matters is the underlying hypocrisy.”

That should apply to newspapers too!

If the only standards you have are double standards, then you have no standards at all.

Moveon.org 'Defend the Dream' Rally, Vancouver, Wa. Part Two

About 25 members of Moveon.org Vancouver showed for their "Defend the Dream" rally outside of the Vancouver, Washington office of Washington State 3rd Congressional District Representative, Jaime Herrera-Beutler to air their grievances, March 24, 2011.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." Ronald Reagan

The Columbian's slant HERE

Libyan Coalition Falling Apart While The Obama’s Party On

As if we need any further proof of the ineptness of Barack Obama sitting at the top of our country, is ill-advised attack on Libya, after dawdling away for weeks as Libyan rebels were decimated by the forces of Libyan leader, Moammar Gadhafi, a report from the UK Daily Times tells us much of what our own Blamestream Media does not.

Who’s in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

Of note at the beginning of the article,

• Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
• French propose a new political ‘committee’ to oversee operations
• Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign’s direction
• Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
• No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes ‘neutralises’ Libyan military machine
• U.K. ministers say war could last ‘30 years’
• Italy to ‘take back control’ of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
• Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a ‘crusade’

ABC News soft shoes the situation with U.S. Ready to Hand Over Libya Lead, But Who Will Take It? leaving out all of the mentions of the deepening divide over the unrest on future leadership of the action.

The Arab league, countries like Venezuela, China, Russia and Iran have all criticized the largely U.S. led attacks in Libya while such notable liberals as Rep. Dennis Kucinich and staunch anti-war protester Ralph Nader indicate Obama should be impeached over launching such an attack without first consulting congress for support.

Germany does not want oversight of the “no-fly zone” over Libya to be led by NATO. NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the organization would only “help enforce” the no-fly zone, not lead it. France wants a “political steering committee” formed to lead the enforcement of the “no-fly zone” while Italy says it will not join the coalition if France were to lead it.

Already, “Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi had expressed his displeasure were France to get the nod to lead and had even threatened to deprive the coalition forces use of the facilities at the bases in Italy” while UK and American officials dicker back and forth over whether or not target Gadhafi for assassination. The Tripoli Post

On the homefront, several Democrats and Republicans aren’t satisfied with a letter sent them by Obama after the attack commenced explaining the why and the so called plans.

James Carafano of the New York Post asks, “What’s our plan?” regarding the lack of clarity expressed to the nation and congress on just what Obama’s intentions are in this action.

Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R-Ohio), has sent a strongly worded letter to Obama expressing his displeasure with Obama’s bypassing congress and criticizing his handling of this 3-day old war saying,

“I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.

“In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered.”

In the meantime, bickering amongst the allies continues with “France arguing against giving the U.S. led NATO political control over an operation in an Arab country, while Turkey calls for limits to any alliance involvement,” while V.P. Biden tries to shore up crumbling support amongst Arab Nations.

Within hours of the attack being launched, many were predicting this would end up an all-American conflict and the more it falls apart so early on the more looks like it will be.

As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State during George W. Bush’s first term, Colin Powell once said, “you break it, you own it.”

But no worries. As this “clusterfuck” continues unraveling, Barack and Michelle Obama remain in South America toasting the high life of royalty and enjoying themselves being treated with undeserved reverence.

Is it 2012 yet?

'Hanoi' Jane Fonda Dis-invited From Speaking Engagement

73 year-old Jane Fonda, a name that causes many Veterans, especially of the Vietnam War much angst, has been dis-invited from a speaking engagement she had accepted HERE. She was to speak New Hampshire Women's Leadership Summit scheduled for June 10 at Nashua Community College, but due to several Veterans’ expressing outrage at the invitation, college president Lucille Jordan "dis-invited" the aging actress.

Dr. Annabel Beerel, founder of the summit wrote,

"In recent days, we have heard voices in our community expressing moving objections to the selection of our main keynote speaker. While the summit encourages public discourse and diverse opinions, we do not wish to cause pain to our veterans. In addition to the many outstanding presenters and panels scheduled, we are working on engaging a new keynote (speaker) for the conference."

Air Force Veteran Roland Petersen, 72 and one of the Veterans who opposed the invitation said,

"I'm delighted. We accomplished our goal. I wanted the publicity because I don't want anybody in the country considering honoring her."

Fonda, who traveled to North Vietnam in 1972, while were still engaged with them, spoke against the US effort in assisting South Vietnam, had her photograph taken where she gleefully smiled sitting on an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American aircraft and was well known for her setting up "coffee-shops" outside of U.S. Military installations to encourage to desert the Military.

Although she claims to have apologized, she has never apologized to the hundreds of thousands of Veterans she offended and demoralized. She has offered only hollow words of "regret" for the photo having been taken.

As a Vietnam Veteran myself, I too am pleased that the Nashua Community College saw fit to place America's Veteran's over this traitor's invitation. Fonda has never regretted her complicity in prolonging the conflict and costing many more lives to be lost, American and Vietnamese both.

Although many who never served do not share our views and feel she should be forgiven, one cannot be forgiven until they express regret for such actions as she took. Many Americans say they hold no grudge and don't see what the big deal is.

The big deal is, it isn't up to America to forgive her actions, it's up to Vietnam Veterans, the ones she besmirched and she hasn't asked us yet.

Obama Proposes Trading Batteries for Brazilian Oil Instead of Drilling Our Own

The economy remains in a shamble, gas prices continue to rise, millions remain out of work and competing for scarce jobs and Obama flies off to Rio de Janeiro to somehow “help boost U.S. jobs” while starting a third war in the Middle East. Why should I be surprised to read of him also offering a cockamamie idea of trading batteries for Brazil’s oil, while also advocating t hat we need to end our reliance on foreign oil?

Nothing the man has done yet as president has made any sense, but this one even boggles my imagination. Speaking at a CEO Business Summit in Brasilia, Brazil March 19, 2011, on the day he launched the Libyan War, Obama said,

“In the United States, we’ve jumpstarted a clean energy industry and we’ll soon have the capacity to produce 40 percent of the world’s advanced batteries. If we can start sharing these new technologies, and leverage private investment from businesses like the ones in this room, we can grow our economies and clean our environment by making, using, trading, selling clean energy products all over the world.”

Seconds before that he said,

“By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

So, he wishes to sell Brazil batteries that we are still working towards and in exchange, we’ll buy the oil that he advocates we stop using, from Brazil. Make sense? No, not to me either because he also says, “Now, even as we focus on oil in the near term, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the only long-term solution to the world’s dependence on fossil fuels is clean energy technology,” all 3 individual comments in the space of a minute!

What he left out was back in 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States under the leadership of Obama appointee Fred P. Hochberg issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to loan up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras for “exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.”

Some sources say neither Obama or Hochberg had anything to do with the decision to underwrite offshore drilling in Brazil, while maintaining a moratorium on any new off shore or on land drilling for America’s oil companies, but I’ll leave that up to you, the reader to form your own opinion.

I don’t buy it, though.

Jack Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, citing the Obama administrations energy policy as an inadequate and illogical energy policy issued a response saying,

“It is beyond comprehension the administration would encourage trade for Brazilian oil while obstructing U.S. oil and natural gas development, eliminating related jobs here at home, and decreasing oil and natural gas revenues to the U.S. Treasury when the government is trillions of dollars in debt. The message from the White House to America’s oil and natural gas workers: we’re going to outsource your job.”

“The administration is missing the obvious: what makes sense for Brazil also makes sense for the United States. Like every other nation, we should be developing our own oil and natural gas resources. It’s good for energy security, good for the economy, good for jobs, and it will help bring down our deficit.”

“The administration says it supports more oil and natural gas development here in the United States, then at every turn discourages it. And today, the White House is making a deal with Brazil for the oil it is not allowing companies to produce here. There’s nothing wrong with buying Brazilian oil, but there’s a big problem when we’re forced to because we’re held back from producing our own.”

On March 10, 2011, Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works spoke on Obama’s cap-and-trade agenda and its effect on rising gas prices. Citing a Congressional Research Services Report, he stated in part, “CRS found that America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. It’s far larger than that of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined.”

We have the largest known reserves of energy sources in the world. Yet, this administration flies off to Brazil to entice them to sell us more oil, telling us we need to stop using oil, issuing moratoriums on new drilling, seeking a “Permanent Moratorium” on off shore drilling off of the Pacific Coast, severely limiting off shore drilling off of the Atlantic & Gulf Coast, all the while blaming the oil companies for the rising gas prices we see at the pump.

Even more absurd, Obama’s Energy Secretary, Steven Chu appearing on Fox News Sunday March 20, 2011 and noted for his 2008 statement, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” stated, “The recent spike in gasoline prices following that huge spike in 2007, 2008 is a reminder to Americans that the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up just because of supply and demand issues.”

Ignoring the obvious, drilling and recovering our own to overcome “supply and demand issues,” Chu goes on to state he “[is] working on developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.”

Somehow, I don’t think trading batteries we have yet to create for oil Brazil has yet to recover will take any pain out of anything as we refuse to allow the recovery of our own massive reserves.

Did Someone Forget to Program Obama's Teleprompter on Libya?

Funny thing about campaigning for high office in this age of electronic technology and using a sitting elected official involved in war as your target, your words are captured for all time for all to see and find in easily accessible archives.

Such is the case with Generalissimo Barack Obama, who relies on his extensive Military background and intricate knowledge of the constitution, when it seems to suit him as he outlined every thing former President George W. Bush did wrong in handling wars and his presidency.

Now that Generalissimo Barack Obama has launched America into a third war in the Middle East, with barely a peep from ardent anti-war activists who wanted to lynch president Bush for fighting back against radical Jihadists after over 2 decades of terrorist attacks against American interests at home and abroad, we can see just how, we can compare similar actions of two men. (Sorry, Obama is really just a mere man after all).

After the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, then President Bush was approached by officials from both major political parties demanding immediate and swift retaliation, where Bush was quoted as replying, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."

As every president does, Bush relied on the Intelligence Community for whom to go after and when it was determined where the attacks originated from, approached congress, securing SJ Resolution 23 - Authorization for Use of Military Force on September 18, 2001 before launching the attack on October 7, 2001.

Relying on intelligence inherited from the previous administration and newly gathered intelligence, as well as the refusal of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to turn over known terrorists within his country and step down as leader of Iraq, President Bush approached congress with what he knew, seeking and securing H.J.Res. 114, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that he signed into law on October 16, 2002 before launching the attack on March 19, 2003.

Even though President Bush followed our constitution and acted accordingly, he was besieged by political opponents with claims that he fabricated intelligence, lied about intelligence, launched an "illegal war" and spent the rest of his presidency under vitriolic accusations.

Addressing constitutional authority to attack a sovereign nation in much the same way as did President Bush, the candidate and Senator Barack Obama replied to a Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power, "In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress," on Dec 20, 2007;

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that 'any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress'."

Although addressing the potential threat posed from Iran gaining nuclear weapons, it shows Obama's intricate knowledge of congressional issues and that even he would never just launch an attack on another nation without first seeking congressional approval.

Or so one would think.

On March 17, 2011, President Barack Obama seemingly welcomed news of a United Nations Resolution approving military action against Libya for Muammar Gaddafi attacking rebel forces in his country in their civil war.

On March 19, 2011, ignoring his own intricate knowledge and firm stance against how president Bush handled Afghanistan and Iraq, Barack Obama launched over 100 cruise missiles into Libya in a supposed International action, not unlike the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq that is destined to become a "virtually all-American war" due to America's "unique capability."

Several members of congress from both parties began speaking out as the military attacks were launched due to Obama's not following his own words to first seek congressional approval.

In the Des Moines Register Democratic debate held Dec 13, 2007, the question "Do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat" was asked and candidate Obama replied, "It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. And that’s been the problem with the administration’s foreign policy generally."

I have yet to see a single "FACT" from the Obama Administration that Libya was any threat to the United States or where any congressional approval was even sought, much less secured before ordering the U.S. Military to launch a third war in the Middle East.

Nor do I see a large and loud outcry from those who readily took to the streets in opposition of President George W. Bush following the constitution in seeking congressional authority and who was hung in effigy, ridiculed, called a warmonger, accused of launching an illegal war and demanded to be impeached.

Maybe they simply forgot to program into the teleprompter his own words about first seeking congressional approval.

Obama Complicity in Crimes of Muammar Gaddafi?

Notwithstanding the attacks launched against Lybia and their leader Muammar Gaddafi, U.S. complicity in the war crimes of Mr. Gaddafi's killing of Lybian rebels may well become the most eye-opening issue facing the international community in the coming months.

There is a revealing photograph of Barack Obama shaking hands with the Lybian butcher in 2009 - Muammar Gaddafi. If President Obama were forced to testify at an impartial, international war crimes tribunal, no doubt he would be asked: "What did you know, and when did you know it?

Of all the conventions in humanitarian law, none is more relevant to contemporary affairs than the Nuremberg principle: "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, is a crime under international law."

It was not Gaddafi’s many years of iron-fisted dictatorship, his support of the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, his crimes against the people of Sierra Leone, his many crimes against peace, that turned Obama and U.S. officials against Libya. It was the heavy handed slaughter in recent days against Libyan rebels, which threatened Western oil, that transformed Gaddafi from an insignificant pest into "the butcher of Benghazi." Prior to the invasion of Benghazi just days ago, few Americans ever paid any attention to Gaddafi’s many crimes against humanity. In a typical white-wash of Gaddafi's crimes much of the American media noted "a degree of moderation," in Libya since he surprised the world by abandoning his WMD’s shortly after Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. Many editors described Libya as "an independent militaristic regional power...the de facto protector of the regional status quo."

And it is certainly reasonable to believe that, had Gaddaffi refrained from invading Benghazi, the alliance between Libya and the U.S. would still be in place today. No doubt the photo of Obama shaking hands with Gaddafi would still be buried in media archives.

Oh wait! Disregard everything you just read. This is what was said about Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush from a 1983 photo, not Barack Obama and Muammar Gaddafi from a photo from 2009.

Move along, nothing to see.

Just more left-wing double standard, that's all.

Greedy Public Union Demands Violate International Law!

The war declared on struggling middle class taxpayers by greedy Public Union bosses has escalated now to the point that supporters of raping more tax dollars from an impoverished middle class have turned to “International Law,” once again ignoring America’s sovereignty and our constitution, placing United Nations mandates in their place.

Ordinarily I’d ignore such efforts to circumvent our sovereignty and rely on our own constitution, but since greedy public union bosses and those they have misled wish to take this avenue, I’ll play along. They may not like that too much, though.

I first saw this tactic of circumventing our sovereignty with James Taranto taking Brian Leiter, a left-liberal philosopher who teaches at the University of Chicago to task at the Wall Street Journal in his article, The Leiter Side of Union Thuggery.

Leiter makes two points on his page here,

1. Collective bargaining is, per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a human right.
2. There are circumstances in which violations of human rights call for unlawful actions, including violence.

Similarly, we now see supporters of the greedy public union bosses citing Amnesty International, who on March 17, 2011 issued their “Warning on US states’ plan to severely restrict workers’ rights .”

Addressing efforts in several states to roll back a portion of collective bargaining privileges of greedy public unions, Amnesty International’s trade union adviser Shane Enright warns, “State governors must withdraw support for these measures which, if adopted, would violate international law. The US has an obligation to uphold the rights of American workers - including the specific right to organize and bargain collectively.”

Additionally, they add, “Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed a bill on Friday that undermines the ability of unions in the public sector to protect workers. The legislation also takes away nearly all collective bargaining rights for most public employees, limiting their negotiation rights only to wages.”

Citing authority for issuing their warning to us, they state, “These rights are an essential foundation to the realisation of other rights, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, as well as conventions adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO).”

Once again, we see that “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as authority for circumventing our sovereignty to impose “socialist International Law” on us and give greedy public union bosses what they demand from our dwindling paychecks, those of us lucky enough to still have a paycheck that is.

Both Amnesty International and Brian Leiter fall back on a single line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 (4) “Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” as the basis for their claim of violating International Law.

They seem to miss, or ignore where in that same declaration is stated, Article 17 (2) “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

Isn’t our wages, our paychecks “property?” Yet, greedy union bosses negotiate in secret with sympathetic politicians to arbitrarily give up more of our paycheck, or property to satisfy the greed of the public union?

Even if you do not consider paychecks in the private sector as “property,” how many have lost their property, their homes and been forced to give up much in the ‘Great Recession’ while greedy union bosses encourage riots to force and intimidate politicians to dig deeper into our pockets?

Article 19 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Except if you take a stand in asking greedy public unions to pay their fair share? Then, the death threats issued, union goons likely assault you, riot in the streets and destroy your property?

A History of Union Murder and Sabotage

Big Labor’s legacy of violence

Article 20 (2) “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

Try working for some of these agencies and refuse entry into the “association,” the union.

Article 21 (3) “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

The “people” expressed their will in the last election and newly elected officials acted on their behalf. Also of note, the unions efforts towards “card check,” doing away with the “Secret Ballot” in order to form a union.

Article 23 (1) “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”

Right to Work and Free choice of employment” Only if you accept being forced to join the union and your union dues are up to date?

Article 30 “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

By reading collective bargaining for any little thing their greedy little violent heart’s desire into that single line at Article 23 (4), are they not using a section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to bring about the “destruction of our rights and freedoms,” as outlined elsewhere in the document?

Little wonder that we can look back to 1937 and the words of then president Franklin Delano Roosevelt as he said in part to the National Federation of Federal Employees,

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

On the contrary to claims by Amnesty International and any others relying on Article 23 (4) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asking greedy public union to pay their fair share during such dire economic times as these and legislating what they may collective bargain for, wages mostly, is not a violation of International Law.

However, reading the rest of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, seeing the conduct displayed by union rioters, the strong arm tactics to confiscate more of our wages and forcing potential employees to join a union in order to work, it is clear to this blogger that it is the greedy public unions who are actually in violation of International Law.

Don’t blame me; this is the road they chose to go down.

Unions and Democrats Continue ‘Sticking It’ to the Middle Class

As states continue struggling with massive budget gaps and taxpayer dollars dry up due to high unemployment, Wisconsin took a bold step to finally grasp control of their past history of over spending. First they elected a majority Republican legislature and a Republican governor willing to stand up to the greedy public unions, one source of out of control spending.

Democrats still in the legislature, instead of debating the new bill proposed that would limit some collective bargaining of the unions, fled the state in an effort to prevent the bill from being voted on, denying the legislature a quorum.

Removing portions of the bill that pertained to budgetary items, portions that required the quorum and facing strong riotous behavior from union members and supporters, the legislature passed the bill, drawing even more anger from rioters outside the capital resulting in death threats being made to legislators.

With the bill passed, cowardly Democrat legislators returned to a “hero’s welcome” by greedy union rioters in Madison, Wisconsin.

Governor Walker requested the Democrat Secretary of State, Doug La Follette to publish the new law. La Follette announced he will wait the maximum allowable time under law to publish it, all while greedy public unions continue to strong arm communities and agencies of the government for more hard earned tax dollars.

Governor Walker rescinded some 1,500 pending lay-off notices, seeing that finally, a portion of state spending was going to be brought under control.

Meanwhile, Democrats, ever mindful of partisanship over the will of the people struggling to make ends meet, filed a lawsuit against the new law, seeking a judge to once again, throw out what the people of a state desired.

As can be expected, they filed in Democrat controlled Dane County, Wisconsin through Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, also a Democrat. The Democrats lawsuit alleges the GOP majority violated the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, claiming “the Republicans didn’t give notice of a key committee meeting far enough in advance” when they took out the fiscal provisions.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi, who I hear is also a Democrat, issued a restraining order against the new law this morning saying, the suit was “likely to succeed on the merits.” She adds, “it seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law).”

Nothing said about the ‘fleebagger’ Democrats running away to prevent the legislature from acting on the behalf of the people of Wisconsin and refusing to return. No, what is important is the will of the greedy public unions over any will of a struggling middle class.

Sumi, I read, is expected to make her final ruling sometime after March 28… after her vacation, giving the greedy union bosses more time to strong arm taxpayers into handing over more of their dwindling paychecks.

To the greedy union bosses and Democrat legislators they help elect, this is “democracy in action,” thwarting the will of the people any way possible and digging deeper and deeper into taxpayers pockets, so greedy unions will have more funds to elect more milquetoast Democrats to do their bidding in bankrupting the middle class.

The greed of private unions drove auto manufacturers nearly out of business and sent many of our manufacturing companies overseas, they being unable to remain profitable under such strong arm tactics.

Maybe the time has come to show greedy union bosses what is really going on and re-issue those 1,500 lay-off notices to union members and add a few more as needed.

If there are no funds left for unemployment benefits? Not a problem, just turn to the greedy union bosses who fought so hard to see more unemployed.

Surely with their excessive Millions of dollars from past dues, they can afford to help newly unemployed union members, right?

Don’t hold your breath expecting any union boss to actually be caring enough to cut into his bank account to help union members.

Smoke & Mirrors Will Not Fuel America’s Economy

The economy remains in a shamble, gasoline prices are leaping higher and higher heaping more expenses on the already struggling middle class, many seeking employment and continuing the lack of any leadership we have had since he took office, Barack Obama is headed off to Rio de Janeiro to “help boost U.S. jobs.”

The Middle East remains a hotbed of unrest. Japan is experiencing a nuclear meltdown after suffering a devastating earthquake and tsunami and the world that has come accustomed to looking to the United States of America for leadership during times of crisis, sees her president vacationing, playing golf and attending parties.

Americans too look towards Washington D.C. for leadership while unemployment remains unrealistically high, paychecks dwindling in the private sector while Public Unions rally for more shrinking tax dollars and gasoline leaps closer to $4.00 a gallon and likely beyond.

Addressing taxpayers’ worries, Obama said he was thinking about releasing some oil from the Strategic Preserve as our imported oil exceeds $100 a barrel. But what about our own oil languishing in the ground all over America and off of our shores?

Our oil remains were it is, locked away while oil companies are prohibited from accessing and recovering our own massive resources. In answer to that, current Senate Leader, Harry Reid (D. NV) and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar like to point out that oil companies already have several leases they will not use for drilling. Harry Reid, in what is being labeled a “use it or lose it” policy claims,

“Oil and gas companies are currently sitting on approximately 60 million acres of oil and gas leases that are going unused,” Reid’s office said in a statement. “At the same time they are holding back on domestic production, these same oil companies are reaping record profits from high gas prices. And Republicans are protecting this shell game, at a high cost to consumers.”

Problem is that’s not exactly how it is. While it is true that oil companies have invested heavily in leases to explore for oil, they do not pertain to those areas where we know massive reserves of untapped sources lie dormant. They are for areas where it is unknown if oil even exists under those lands. Of course, Democrats want to pass a law forcing oil companies to return the leases, supposedly because they are not using them.

Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute states in his article, The ‘Use It or Lose It’ Deception,showing that it is already law,

“When it comes to crafting a sensible energy policy, once again politics carry the day. This notion of ‘use it or lose it’ is a stale, invalid argument and a political distraction to rising gasoline prices combined with the fact that we're not doing enough in the Gulf to use our own resources and put Americans back to work.”

Harry Reid wishes us to think that oil companies are greedy, a part of the Democrats policy of instilling class envy while ignoring

“Companies pay millions of dollars to acquire these leases (each lease costs at least $250,000 and some have gone for more than $100,000,000), further fees for renting the leases and the leases have a finite term. If a company does not produce oil or gas from a lease then they are required to return it to the government.”

Reminding us that this so called ‘policy’ of higher gasoline prices was pretty much expressed back in 2008 by then incoming administration officials, Investors Business Daily shows the claim of Steven Chu, current Secretary of Energy,

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

To achieve that, IBD states,

“restricting supply is one way to ‘boost’ gas prices, whether by designating oil-rich areas off Alaska as ‘critical’ habitat for an abundant and growing polar bear population or by imposing a de facto moratorium on offshore drilling because one well exploded,”

both of which we see still happening.

A December 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal article on the agenda to create skyrocketing gas prices tells us of Jay Hakes, from the Clinton era Energy Information Administration who said,

“There’s no way we can create a better future without the price of [fossil-fuel-based] energy going up. But it’s tough for a politician to get up and say ‘Your prices are going to have to go up’.”

True, but it sure is easy to demonize the companies that recover our energy sources and create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs while doing it instead, isn’t it?

What escapes me is how, during such dire economic times as these, forcing the price of fuel to skyrocket and making it more expensive not just to drive, but to heat our homes, feed our children and even have a home “creates a better future.”

Looking back at the WSJ article, we see that Steven Chu believes that “[forcing] consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work” is his idea of a “better future,” although maybe not yours.

It sure isn’t mine.

Also accomplishing this “goal” of the Obama administration, Erik Milito tells us,

“The administration itself is preventing the industry from developing these leases because it is not issuing permits to drill or conduct seismic studies of these leases. They want the industry to develop the leases it already possesses, but they won’t grant the permits to do so.”

Simply put, Reid and company call upon the oil companies to ‘use it or lose it’ in the leases they hold now, but at the same time, deny those same oil companies from ‘using it’ which will soon force them to ‘lose it.’

API has made available a very interesting Fact Sheet outlining the use of federal leases for oil exploration that I encourage you to look over.

IBD also reminds us of words Barack Obama spoke while campaigning in the 2008 when he said,

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

How right they are as they add, “Neither is drilling for more domestic energy.”

From where I sit, this seems more and more like a deliberate effort to ensure that we in the struggling middle class are priced out of the ability to use our vehicles as we desire and even to mandate where we live and what we may drive, all at their whims.

That is neither Democracy nor freedom; it is manipulation towards socialism and a dictatorship.

I encourage all who may read this to begin pressuring elected officials to get busy with those permits and let the professionals recover our own resources. We have energy needs and in order to maintain the highest standard of living the world has seen, those needs must be met.

The only viable way to get off of our dependence upon foreign oil is to use our own.

If you want to remain free, stand up now and let your elected officials hear from you and keep hearing from you. Tell them to stop the smoke and mirrors and create an energy policy where our own resources are recovered.

You and your children’s future depends on it.

Your Public Sector Unions at Work

Andrew Klavan, from PJTV illustrates what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pointed out in 1937 when he said of public unions,

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

Public Unions need to accept their fair share of the sacrifice and carry their fair share of the burden. Asking them to help us weather this ongoing economic downturn is not "union-busting," unless they continue to refuse to accept their fair share like you and I must.

Amnesiatic Obama and His Short Memory

After wondering why it took two months for the usual cry of “gun control’ to come, after the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford in Tucson, Arizona this past January, and even doubting that Obama actually authored the op-ed published in the Sunday, March 13, 2011 Arizona Daily Star, I am left completely flabbergasted reading the very first paragraph.

“It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.”

All of the normal knee-jerk calls for gun control are contained in the piece, “enforcing laws that are already on the books,” “reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens,” “make the system faster and nimbler,” “porous background checks,” “more we can do to prevent gun violence,” and the inevitable “beginning of a new discussion.”

Seen it all before, heard it all before, nothing new.

And as usual, missed is that the system in place was defeated due to lax law enforcement in identifying a young man, mentally disturbed that received several passes from run-ins with law enforcement and a family that did not heed repeated warnings on his mental instability.

Nothing new in all of this, save that first paragraph quoted above.

I realize actually performing in the office he was elected to in 2008 is not all the important to Barack Obama, as he spends more time on the golf course and on vacation than pretending to lead the nation, but doesn’t he ever receive news alerts while off playing on our tax dime? Doesn’t he at least have a radio on his golf bag?

How can anybody, with any pretense of a straight face come forward now, a mere 2 months after the tragic shooting/murder and say, “And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.”

Within minutes, it seemed, all were heard were attacks on Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, conservatives in general and every faction of talk radio. Words ever spoken by any on the right were twisted into appearing like calls for violence. Ads featuring a target sight were manipulated to claim as threats of bodily harm.

Anything the left could twist was blasted as uncivil, vitriolic and violent, ignoring the even stronger tactics Democrats are noted for.

Obama himself came out in his January 13, 2011 speech at the memorial for the victims saying, “It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds,” indicating he must have been aware of the vitriol and rhetoric emanating from his party cohorts.

Of that speech, the New York Times published, “Mr. Obama called on ideological campaigners to stop vilifying their opponents. The only way to move forward after such a tragedy, he said, is to cast aside ‘point-scoring and pettiness’.”

From Rachel Maddow to Keith Olbermann, the rhetoric continued as fingers were pointed towards any on the right, knowing full well that it was the work of the deranged mind of a young liberal.

No cheap shot was too much, no casting aspersions against conservatives was over looked. Day in and day out for weeks, Democrats and their supporters pulled every dirty trick they could to cast a dark shadow over political opponents.

And now, Obama’s name is attached to an op-ed allegedly written by him, or for him claiming, “And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.”

Either he has totally lost what little mind he had and slipped into a state of amnesia, or he is totally dishonest in already going for revisionist history to make Democrats appear much better than they are for the 2012 elections.

Another reason could be, since he specifies “Americans by and large,” is that he doesn't consider his party, liberal Democrats and their supporters as “Americans.”

Whatever the reason, that it would even be tried this soon after all of the rhetoric was thrown about just proves to me he is unfit for the office he occupies.

We need a leader in Washington D.C., we need someone at the helm knowing what he or she is doing and that wants to see America thrive and regain her greatness.

What we don’t need is the current poseur stumbling about who can’t even remember what was going on a little over a month ago.

Public Union Thuggery Headed to Washington State?

Like Wisconsin, Washington State faces a multi-Billion dollar budget deficit and is constitutionally required to balance the budget. Past efforts have come up short and although balanced on paper, have resulted in the deficit gap just being kicked down the road to be dealt with later.

Later has arrived and even governor Gregoire is calling for drastic cuts in areas she doesn’t agree with. But, difficult decisions must be made in order to avoid slipping into bankruptcy.

Democrat Representative of the 49th legislative district, Jim Moeller continues to create ways to take more money from citizens in the state, showing his unwillingness to cut out wasteful spending, which has gotten us into this budgetary crisis. One such example would be his tax we all dubbed the ‘candy & soda tax’ that heaped taxes on some candy bars and other comfort products. It was easily thrown out by voters in the November 2010 election, after we succeeded in having his legislation put before voters.

One area of concern that has been the subject of calls to be dealt with by taxpayers is public union benefits and wages, often that are much more generous than those a private sector counter-part. A report issued by the State Auditor’s Office in December 2010 shows that the State’s Unfunded Liabilities are a Whopping $24.1 Billion, a significant portion of which is union pensions.

State Legislators, mostly Republicans with maybe a couple Democrats, have began the task of giving these liabilities more scrutiny and seeing how Wisconsin and some other states have rolled back on collective bargaining for public unions to save jobs and revenues, are discussing following suit.

Fiscal hawk, Senator Joe Zarelli of the 18th legislative district as introduced a bill, SB 5870 “calling for the Legislature to reject contracts Gov. Chris Gregoire has negotiated with state workers” as reported in the Seattle Times recently.

As I previously showed HERE, HERE and HERE, the public unions have been resisting calls that they make equal sacrifices and pay their fair share during these depressed economic times.

Instead, as we still going on in Wisconsin, even after the measure passed and was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker, protests, riots, violence and Death Threats from public union members and supporters seem to have become the norm, instead of sharing in the sacrifices all of us are making.

A look through the many comments left at the Seattle Times article shows the bill isn’t being well received, as expected. Even from across the river in Portland a call has already gone out to oppose any measures to bring spending under control by organizing a rally at Terry Schrunk Plaza this Tuesday by organizers from Moveon.org.

The announcement of the event, labeled “Defend the Dream” claims,

“Republican attacks on workers and public programs are escalating in Wisconsin and in Washington, D.C. We have to stand up to Defend the Dream! So on Tuesday, we're getting together in Portland. At the event, we'll stand in solidarity by wearing Wisconsin red and white, hear from local speakers impacted by Republican attacks, and be a show of community force to stop this onslaught on the American Dream.”

If you are like me, I bet you never envisioned the “American Dream” being standing in the unemployment line or waiting outside of a soup kitchen.

As more and more taxpayers are broke, unemployed and struggling to make ends meet, greedy public union bosses and their supporters manipulate members into thinking all is okay and the pot of gold under the rainbow is real and that they are exempt from sharing in the sacrifice equally.

Union violence led by union bosses has a deep history in America and whenever unions don’t get their way, they have quickly resorted to it. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a strong union supporter warned public unions in 1937,

“I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Apparently that is a part of FDR public union bosses pay no heed to as just this morning, I was speaking with a legislator from Olympia who told me that some are already receiving phone calls from people identifying themselves with the unions and saying words to the effect of, “if you go down the road as Wisconsin did, there will be blood to pay.”

My hopes that unions in our state would be more cool-headed and not resort to the thuggery seen elsewhere were dashed as I realized the thuggery is already here and just waiting to be unleashed should unions not get their way again.

A recall an ad campaign years ago that said “look for the union label.”

I guess they just conveniently left off the “or else.”

Obama Continues Tap Dancing on Energy and the Economy

As reports of the horrific devastation Japan suffered from the 9.1 earthquake experienced on March 11, 2011 continued coming out in the news, Barack Obama, like all before him, held a news conference vowing help and support for the displaced people of Japan. Scheduled before the earthquake occurred to discuss rising gas prices and economy, Obama did step up and offer assistance to the beleaguered nation, overshadowing his original intent for the conference and reminding me of our long held attitude, “We’re Americans. This is what we do.”

In vowing assistance to Japan “to help with Japanese nuclear power plants and any breaches in the safety system,” he also touched on “The U.S. will also provide heavy lift equipment to clear transportation systems of the massive debris” adding “U.S. aircraft carriers and ships are also steaming toward Japan, loaded with supplies.”

Our generosity is always helping nations when tragedy occurs brings us back to the original intent of the news conference, energy. Or, should I say the current lack of it as we see fuel prices rapidly climbing again due to the rising cost of oil we depend on from the troubled Middle East.

Touching on this and the devastation of Japan’s refineries in the earthquake, Obama said, “We are confident about our ability to fill any potential gaps in (oil) supply,” as he mentioned tapping into our Strategic Petroleum Reserve if need be as those before him have done during times of crisis.

As I indicated months ago in my post Fueling “the Worlds EMT,” many of this ships steaming towards Japan and nearly all of the emergency equipment, especially the ‘heavy lift equipment’ Obama spoke of relies on fossil based fuels. The very same fuels the Obama administration is currently preventing from being drilled and refined from within our borders and offshore. West coast politicians are even seeking a complete and permanent ban on all offshore access to our own energy resources, even during times as tragic as these.

Ignoring actions taken by his administration to prevent more drilling of our own resources and even ignoring comments by former president Bill Clinton that continued delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous,” Obama said,

“There is more we can do, however. For example, right now, the (oil) industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres — both offshore and on land — where they aren’t producing a thing. So I’ve directed the Interior Department to determine just how many of these leases are going undeveloped and report back to me within two weeks so that we can encourage companies to develop the leases they hold and produce American energy. People deserve to know that the energy they depend on is being developed in a timely manner.”

Even during a time of tragedy for the Japanese and spiraling gasoline prices, dwindling oil supplies due to unrest overseas, Obama points fingers away from himself, blaming others for the problems he continues to manifest.

Responding to these allegations, Jack Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute said,

“Long-term problems call for short-term leadership. Suggesting that we rely on other nations to solve our energy challenges is irresponsible and will not increase our energy security. The Obama administration continues to delay or defer action on developing our domestic resources of oil and natural gas at every turn.”

“The trend is alarming. The administration has postponed lease sales in offshore areas. It has cancelled lease sales in onshore federal lands. It has extended permitting timelines for current leases and added unnecessary regulatory burdens. It has chosen inaction on essential energy projects that would create jobs, drive economic growth, and boost federal revenues.”

“To get more oil and gas, we need more access. Placing more government lands and waters off-limits and forcing companies to focus on areas that may show little promise even if already under lease will not solve our energy challenges.”

Mr. Gerard did not say it, but I will, we first need a leader, something sorely lacking in America today. A leader who places the well being of Americans as top priority over his and his families vacations and endless golf games, while the rest of the country struggles with the ongoing economic quagmire we are in.

I would also remind the Obama administration and all who agree with him on ending our reliance on petroleum, those vessels you vowed to send to Japan in their time of need also depend upon the fuel you are delaying the recovery of, not to mention the jobs and revenues also sorely needed.

While the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Obama claims he is prepared to tap “if need be” consists of some 727 Million barrels of oil, known oil reserves existing within American territory, sitting their untapped and blocked from access were estimated to be about 2.3 trillion barrels in 2008. Drilling our own resources not only could end our reliance on imported oil, we could become the one doing most of the exporting to others.

Instead, we continue to hear calls of more “Green Energy” that continues being shown as more costly, unreliable and in some cases, more of an environmental hazard than petroleum.

Remarkably, Obama also claimed that U.S. energy production has increased on his watch, ignoring that “oil production on federal land and waters is 16% less than what was projected four years ago” and making “no mention of production shutdowns in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.”

All we continue to see is his tap dancing around issues of importance while not only the American people continue to suffer under high unemployment, an elongated economic downturn, increasing fuel prices, food prices and charges for most other goods while he sides with greedy public unions demanding more and more from the struggling middle class.

And now, add to that millions of displaced Japanese workers and citizens deeply in need of help while they struggle with the largest natural catastrophe in the history of their nation.

What we need and do not have is a leader to confidently guide the country through these troubling times.