"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Education in Oklahoma City

Yesterday former Florida Governor Jeb Bush made a visit to Oklahoma City promoting his national agenda for education reform and what states can do to improve education. He praises Oklahoma in this video for their new bills dealing with education that will improve our Oklahoma student's education greatly because it calls for accountability.

We have high schools in the OKC School District that sit around and play games rather than learn. Teachers need held accountable along with parents to give our students a better education here in Oklahoma.  These bills are a giant leap forward after years of the Democrats following the lead of the teacher's union.

Oklahoma has some of the best schools in the Country and some of the worst. The difference between an eduction in the Norman Public School system and say Mid-Del School district about 20 miles north is worlds apart. We are both 6A schools and that is where the similarity ends. While Norman schools expect their students to perform, some of Mid-Del's schools are a bad joke. When we were transferred to Oklahoma, we chose Norman because of the advantages of their public schools over Mid Del and other surrounding districts. Norman has continued to improve the education of students where others are stagnant.

From our Administration, to our teachers, parents, and community they are providing a quality education that I would put up against any public school in the Country. We have educators from all over the Country visit to look at our Fine Arts program in our schools from the All-City Concert by all the bands/orchestras to our own TV channel run by the students. With the University of Oklahoma right here, our elementary schools are taking advantage of the mentoring provided by OU students including the athletes.

These new bills will require all the districts to put students first and sincerely hope that the parents wake-up in some areas and realize how important it is for their children to get a first rate education. From what my son is seeing as an adjunct professor that is not happening with students from some of the school districts in the Oklahoma City area. Some of his students have a lack of a basic English education. Forget the math, their grasp of English is very poor with little to no reading comprehension or writing skills as high school graduates. Ever heard of Walt Whitman? Well most of my son's one class has not.

Very happy to see Governor Bush in Oklahoma promoting education.

Source: The Oklahoman

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Obama Signed Secret Libya Order Authorizing Support For Rebels (2-3 Weeks Ago)

The United States is now officially helping arm the Rebels in Libya when some of them if not most in western Libya are members of the The Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG)which is a terrorist group who is part of Al Qaeda. Obama and the people working for him never bothered to find out just who the rebels were or did they? Does Obama know they are part of Al Qaeda and just not care? Now the latest information has been leaked by four Government sources which is mind boggling after the Obama speech last night and his interview with CNN and NBC. Wonder what Brian Williams is going to think about his interview when he learns the truth.

Obama signed this order 2-3 weeks ago and never bothered to tell the Congress or mention it in his speech last night.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Looks like we are dealing with sources who agreed to talk knowing full well that Obama did not reveal this last night or to both sides of the aisle in Congress. Did the Vice Admiral questioned by Senator Inhofe know this at the time or was he in the dark?

What else is Obama and Clinton hiding about Libya from the Congress and the American people?

Obama Signed Secret Libya Order Authorizing Support For Rebels

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.
In interviews with American TV networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.

Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.

Excerpt: Read more at Huffington Post

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders Courtesy of Sen Schumer

The fact that Senator Schumer is taking orders from Democrat Senate Caucus on how to deal with the Republican House should not shock anyone or the fact they want to portray the House Speaker and members of the House Republican Caucus in a negative light for the media.

What does shock are two things -- first is that this comes from the New York Times and second that Schumer's staff was dumb enough to leave an open mic so the media could hear his instructions to fellow Democrats.

Anyone who knows Speaker Boehner knows he is his own person and not beholding to the Tea Party movement, the Tea Party Caucus or any other group. He will meet with the Tea Party but has stayed independent which Democrats already know but why let the truth get in the way.

When the Democrats talk about the 'extreme right wing,' they don't have a clue about the Tea Party. Most Tea Party members are not 'extreme right wing' but are Americans who are fed up with overspending of the Government along with overreaching by the Government into their daily lives. That is not 'extreme right wing' but American patriotism. Liberal Democrat like Schumer and Boxer have gone so far left that anyone with common sense seems 'extreme' to them.
March 29, 2011, 12:30 pm

Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button.

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.How news is made . . .

Source:  New York Times

Byron York: Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sent our military into a wartime situation on the side of the rebels when  they had no clue who they were. Senator Inhofe needs to keep pressing this issue because if Gadhafi falls, the chance of Al Qaeda supporters taking control in Libya seems very high.

In 2007, after a military study of the The Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG), it was determined that they had become an Al Qaeda affilitated terrorist organization and put on the State Department list of terrorist organization.  All the Administration had to do was google in 'libyan terrorist group' to find plenty of sites about the LIFG, including their own State Department site. Various sites detail when the LIFG joined Al Qaeda and the fact some of their leaders were in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting against the United States.

Now we have an Admiral saying there are "flickers" of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who are part of the rebels. Well according some embed reporters with the rebels, it is more than a "flicker" and one of the heads of the rebels fought against the United States in Afghanistan after 9/11. Senator Inhofe asked the question in the hearing on Libya and gets a weasel word answer that there are "flickiers" and they are still investigating. Why didn't they bother to investigate before this wartime effort was launched? What was the rush to war?

Can any terrorist group can now call themselves rebels and expect support from the United Stateswith no checking into who they are? Have witnessed first hand ineptness out of the Government but this is beyond inept, this is negligence at the highest level.

What an absolute mess this Administration has gotten this Country in and all those people on both sides of the aisle that rushed in that we needed to be in Libya seems to have no clue just who the rebels are in Libya.  Looks like our military or the CIA doesn't have a clue about that either.

When did our intelligence agencies become so inept? Starts at the top and putting Leon Panetta at CIA has been a disaster. In fact, putting so many Clintonites in the Obama Administration in addition to Obama Czars and their staffs has been an imitigated disaster.  No one has yet to determine who Gadhafi was after with his march on certain cities. Gadhafi said it was against Al Qaeda and the drug smugglers. What if Gadhafi was right? Who provided the intelligence on Libya and Gadhafi -- Al Qaeda informants still on the side of Al Qaeda? Wish someone would ask that question!

The United States has no vested interest in Libya and it is not a threat so why was anyone for going into Libya without checking out the rebels? Why aren't more members of the mainstream media asking just who are these rebels. If they are indeed Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbolla as many are now saying openly, why are we or NATO in the skies of Libya helping out the rebels?

This is the reason all Administrations need to go to Congress for approval before launching any attack for any reason except for immediate retaliation when we have been attacked. No President has the right to commit to military action when we have no vested interested like Obama did with Libya. His speech last night certainly did not change my mind that he violated the War Powers Act plain and simple.
Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf
By: Byron York 03/29/11 11:37 AM
Chief Political Correspondent http://twitter.com/ByronYork

Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, says American intelligence agents are "examining very closely" the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war. So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered "flickers" of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although Stavridis calls the opposition leadership "responsible."

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Stavridis was asked by Republican Sen. James Inhofe to comment on "reports about the presence of al Qaeda among the rebels, among those with whom we are associated." "As you can imagine, we are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders in these opposition forces," Stavridis responded. "The intelligence that I am receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership I am seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gadhafi. We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah, we've seen different things, but at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say that there is a significant al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We'll continue to look at that very closely. It's part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship."

Stavridis' testimony raises two questions. One is the extent of al Qaeda and other terrorist presence; what is a flicker? The second question is why the United States did not complete its "due diligence" before, and not after, going to war. "I don't say this critically of you, because you didn't make this decision," Inhofe said to Stavridis, "but wouldn't that have been a good idea to find out before we took the steps we are taking?"

"I think that from the moment this crisis unfolded, there has been a great deal of intelligence applied to this," Stavridis responded.

The lack of knowledge about the Libyan opposition has become a major question in the Libya conflict. At Monday's Pentagon briefing, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin asked another top official, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, a very simple question: "Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?" "We're not talking with the opposition," Gortney responded. "We have -- we would like a much better understanding of the opposition. We don't have it. So yes, it does matter to us, and we're trying to fill in those gaps, knowledge gaps." Gortney's answer was another suggestion that the U.S. is doing critical due diligence on the fly in Libya.

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner
When you read that Fox News Reporter Jennifer Griffen asked a Vice Admiral "Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?  She gets a reply that they are not talking with the opposition and would like a better understanding.  As I said before he can google in 'libyan terrorist group' and find out who some members of the opposition are who took advantage of unrest of the younger people in Libya and now have taken over.

Bottom line is Obama and Clinton sent our military into war without knowing who the rebels were and with NO approval from Congress as there is no vested interest for the United States in Libya as stated by the Secretary of Defense.  This Administration violated the War Powers Act and when are they going to be held accountable? 

The Administration claim that NATO is in charge has to be the biggest spin yet as the United States is providing most of the weapon systems involved and even more with the C-130 gunships and A-10's now being into Libyan skies.  That doesn't even include that the United States funds NATO costs more than France and Great Britain together.  The NATO person in charge reports to two Americans including the American who heads NATO.  So who is really in charge?

America needs a restart in January 2013 with a new Administration who puts America first!

Monday, March 28, 2011

Fact Check: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

AP once again with this Fact Check article on Obama's speech on Libya is proving that a lot of their reporters are once again playing it right down the middle and calling it like they see it. Found this paragraph from the AP Fact Check particularly telling:

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.
In reality they are saying Obama is using semantics to convince Americans that the US is no longer in charge when we will still be running the show. AP gets it but will the liberals in the media that hang on to Obama's every word?

Fact Check: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

Published: March 28, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:


OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role — including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation — to our military, and to American taxpayers — will be reduced significantly."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general, Charles Bouchard, was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. Bouchard is deputy commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples. The command's top officer is an American admiral, Samuel Locklear, and Locklear's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.


OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.


OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize and military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."


Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

Read more: The Oklahoman
Since Obama aides say he made up his mind on Tuesday, why didn't Obama notify Congress before going on his spring break trip to South and Central America on that Friday? Most members of Congress got the word when Obama released a recording detailing his action while he was in Brazil. If Obama did make up his mind on the 15th, strange that he never told his Secretary of State who kept going out saying Obama couldn't make up his mind as late at the 17th of March.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) had a few things to say about Obama and his lack of consulting Congress today:

Inhofe blasts Obama on Libya, “in shock” over lack of consultation
posted at 6:30 pm on March 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Hot Air spoke to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) in an exclusive interview a few minutes ago just after he returned to Washington after more than a week at home in Oklahoma, with his first media response to the military action in Libya. Inhofe, the second-ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, says he was never consulted by the White House on the action, and after checking with both Democrats and Republicans on those committees, isn’t sure anyone was consulted. Inhofe accused Obama of reversing his stance on intervention in order to take credit for leadership of the coalition, and suggested that Obama waited until Congress was in recess to pull the trigger:

Click Here to view Senator Inhofe's exclusive interview with Ed Morrissey of Hot Air. “
I don’t think it’s good policy” to keep Congress out of the decision process on military intervention, Inhofe told me, noting that George W. Bush came to Congress first before beginning offensive military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. When I asked Inhofe whether Congress would have authorized the President’s move had Obama consulted Capitol Hill, Inhofe expressed some reservations. “You almost have to wonder if he did this intentionally,” Inhofe says about the timing of the decision, “because we were out of session in a recess.” Inhofe objects to the fact that he wasn’t consulted as a member of the two committees with oversight in this situation, but “even his own Democrat leadership was not consulted,” and says that Obama will have a hard time explaining that in his speech tonight.

Even apart from the timing, Inhofe has more questions than answers. “Are we going to be able to do it with just air power alone? We don’t know that,” Inhofe says. “Are we teaming up with the very people we’re fighting in Afghanistan — al-Qaeda?” Inhofe also questions whether Obama has thoroughly planned resources for the mission after a series of “downgrades” of the military. For instance, the mission uses C-17s, Inhofe says, a program that Obama has stopped, “one of the worst things he’s done.”
Excerpt: Read More at Hot Air

Donald Trump Takes on Whoopi, ‘The View’ Over Obama’s Birth Certificate

Donald Trump started out asking a simple question about where is Obama's birth certificate and now a week later is beginning to ask the same question as lot of us have asked -- why spend millions like Obama has to keep your birth certificate secret?

VIDEO: Donald Trump Takes on Whoopi, ‘The View’ Over Obama’s Birth Certificate
Fox and Friends 8:28 am on March 28, 2011

Donald Trump responds to a recent appearance on ‘The View’ in which things got heated over Obama’s birth certificate. Trump says claims by co-host Whoopi Goldberg that his remarks were racist were “insulting.”

Rev Manning who tells it like it is apologizes to Donald Trump in this video after thinking he was asking the question for political purposes but he said it is obvious with his passion that it is more than that. In this longer version of the view, Donald Trump also is asking the question why no remembers him that went to school with him. Even in the classes he supposedly took at Columbia, no one remembers Obama. Something is not right and we have to wonder if at Columbia he studied in a foreign country as part of their program.

Know one thing is that any doubt we had that Obama was born here has increased dramatically after this last week. We find it very demeaning that the people questioning why he won't show his birth certificate are called names. Donald Trump pointed out on Fox and Friends this morning that President Bush was asked to show his birth certificate. If Sen McCain was asked for his birth certificate, why not Obama? What is Obama hiding?

The bottom line is that the issue of the Obama birth certificate is not back front and center thanks to a simple question by Donald Trump that drove some of the women on The View over the edge. It is not racist no matter how many times Whoopie Goldberg says it is -- it is American to ask if your President was born in this Country when they won't show a birth certificate!

Republicans are Winning the Budget Fight

Finally an article that makes perfect sense about the strategy that the Republican leadership is following to cut the FY11 budget.  We have not understood the conservatives who are up in arms when each time the budget is continued, billions of dollars are saved by cuts.  If they tried to do the cuts all at once, we would have a government shutdown and where does that get us?   The American people seem to grasp what is going on much better than some members of Congress who seemed to forget Republicans do not control the Senate or the White House.

Anyone who was dumb enough to think winning the House was going to mean automatic budget cuts doesn't understand how Congress works with the White House.  Even if the Senate passed the Republican version which was never going to happen, there are not enough Senate votes to override a veto by Obama.

We do not understand the shortsightedness of some Republicans including members of Congress as Republicans are getting billions in budget cuts everytime they pass a continuing resolution.   We do not believe a Government shutdown is wise at this point in time and frankly think some people have a misguided idea how the media will crucify Republicans.  Winning the House was great but in the scheme of things, it is still only one leg of the three legs of Government.  To get anything passed Republicans have to talk and negotiate with Democrats.  Shame people cannot see that you cannot just bully your way through -- it doesn't work that way.   People considered reasonable in the past, don't get it and it really is not that hard.  One big budget cut or more smaller cuts that equal the same makes zero difference to the end game.

Fred Barnes is sayinig what we have been saying for the last few months about the budget situation and how they are incrementally getting the budget cuts.  We thought it was a smart idea and still do even though some members of Congress are starting to criticize.   Fred Barnes makes perfect sense to us!
March 28, 2011
Republicans Are Winning the Budget Fight
The incremental approach is working and embarrassing Democrats. Why should the GOP risk a government shutdown?

Some of the most disgruntled folks in Washington these days are conservative Republicans in Congress. They believe their party has abandoned the cause of deep spending cuts that spurred the Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm election. They say their leaders are needlessly settling for small, incremental cuts.

Moreover, this demand for bigger cuts and defunding of liberal programs—immediately—comes from prominent members of the House, not just excitable freshmen. "This is our mice or men moment," according to Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Allowing Democrats more time to negotiate "will only delay a confrontation that must come," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the House Study Committee, added: "We've made some solid first downs. Now it's time to look to the end zone."

The end zone is far away, however, and impatience won't get Republicans there. Impatience is not a strategy. It may lead to a government shutdown with unknown results. To enact the sweeping cuts they desire, Republicans must hold the House and capture the Senate and White House in the 2012 election. Then they'll control Washington. Now they don't.

In the meantime, the incremental strategy is working. Republicans have passed two short-term measures to keep the government in operation since early March while slashing $10 billion in spending. At this rate, they would achieve the target of GOP congressional leaders of lopping off $61 billion from President Obama's proposed budget in the final seven months of the 2011 fiscal year.

Excerpt: Read More at the The Wall Street Journal

Biden Keeps Press in Closet at Event: 'They Gave Me a Bottle of Water and Shut the Door'

This apology that the spokesman said Powers accepted must not have gone over too well since he talked to Newsmax.  Not sure I would believe anything out of this Administration but at least Fox News has picked up on the incident.  Now you know if you are a reporter attending a Democrat fundraiser that you will not be allowed to mingle and will be put in a hold room like a cell to keep you from asking questions.  Is this going to wake-up the mainstream media because they could be next?

UPDATE:   Fox News reports:
Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander, responding to coverage of that account, said in a written statement Sunday that the decision to hold Powers there was a "mistake" and that the reporter has accepted her "unequivocal apology." The apology was made shortly after the fundraiser.

"This was the unfortunate mistake of an inexperienced staffer and the vice president's office has made sure it will never happen again," she said.

She explained that "hold rooms" are typically provided for pool reporters covering the vice president when he speaks at private homes. In this case, Biden was speaking at the home of a wealthy developer and the reporter was told to wait in a storage closet -- which Alexander said contained open space, as well as a table and chair where the reporter could work. She said the space was chosen because of its "close proximity" to the room where Biden was speaking.

"A hold room, however, should not be a storage room," she clarified.
The former Texas Tech Coach Mike Leach was fired by Texas Tech for putting a player in a holding room out of the sun.  Is Biden going to fire his staffers for doing this to a reporter?  We doubt it because this Administration has little regard for members of the press and feel they can do whatever necessary to keep the members of the press from asking questions.

This is unbelievable that this happened in the United States.  Where is the uproar out of the media or we will be hearing a lot about this today?  This imperial administration seems to think they can do whatever they want and no will criticize.  Are members of the media going to speak up or will they be the next put in a 'closet' as a holding room so they cannot ask questions?  Time will tell but no amount of apology out of a Biden spokesman is going to make what happened go away.
Biden Keeps Press in Closet at Event: 'They Gave Me a Bottle of Water and Shut the Door'
Sunday, 27 Mar 2011 11:23 AM

By David Wright

Veteran reporter Scott Powers went to cover a fundraiser headlined by Vice President Joe Biden – and ended up being "imprisoned” in a closet by the veep’s staffers.

“They gave me a bottle of water and shut the door,” Powers said.

Although Biden's team has apologized, staffers merely said they were sorry they didn't have a better "hold room" for Powers.

The Orwellian incident happened on March 23 when Powers, 51, was assigned to be the pool reporter for Biden’s fundraiser for Sen.  Bill Nelson at the Orlando, Fla, home of developer and philanthropist Alan Gingsburg.

Scott Powers Closet

More than 150 guests had paid at least $500 a head to listen to speeches by Biden and Nelson. They enjoyed a buffet of caprese crostini with oven dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbed with grapes, honey and gorgonzola cheese and bacon deviled eggs, followed by a lunch of grilled chicken Caesar.

Powers, a highly regarded veteran staff reporter on the Orlando Sentinel, arrived expecting, as usual, to be able to mingle and chat with the guests, many of whom he knew.

But he got a rude shock.

"One of Biden’s staffers, a young woman of about 23 or 24, met me at the door, led me through the party, then said, 'We want you to wait here until the vice president arrives,'" he told Newsmax.

"'Here’ was basically a storage closet. It was about 8 feet by 10 feet, with shelves full of stuff and boxes and baskets piled up all over the place. There was an old desk in one corner with files and papers all over it – and just enough room for one chair close by the door to sit on.

“They gave me a bottle of water and shut the door.

“I was puzzled, but assumed this was only going to last a few minutes. Instead, it went on for an hour and 15 minutes.

“I put my head out five or six times and asked what was going on, but each time another young woman staffer who was guarding the door told me, 'I’ll let you know when you can come out.'

“They were obviously waiting until Biden and Senator Nelson were actually on the podium — and didn’t want me to speak to a soul at the fundraiser.”

Powers was finally escorted out of the closet to listen to Biden's and Nelson's non-headline-making speeches.

“But as soon as the speeches finished, the female staffers escorted me back to the closet and told me, ‘You’ll have to wait here till the motorcade clears,’” he told Newsmax.

“Finally after another 15 minutes they let me out and walked with me to my car — making sure I was on my way.”

During his confinement, Powers took a picture of the crowded interior of the closet and emailed it to his editor.

“Should I have made a scene?” he wonders. “Maybe — but I was more concerned with thinking how the hell I was going to get a story without talking to people.

“As far as I’m concerned, Joe Biden is the first politician who’s kept reporters and fundraiser guests apart.”

Ironically, says Powers, he knew many of the well-heeled guests and would have had no problem talking to them.

And two days later, after news of the bizarre incident spread, he got a call from the embarrassed host of the fundraiser, Alan Ginsburg.

“He said he was very sorry — he had no idea I’d been confined in the closet,” Powers said.

Biden’s spokeswoman apologized after Newsmax and other outlets reported about the incident.

But instead of addressing the issue head on, Biden fell into campaign speak, calling the small closet a “hold room.”

"Scott — You have our sincere apologies for the lack of a better hold room today," wrote Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Biden Keeps Press in Closet at Event: 'They Gave Me a Bottle of Water and Shut the Door'

Professor Bill Ayers affirms he wrote Obama's book Dreams from my Father

It has been obvious for sometime that Obama did not have the capability to write his book, Dreams from my Father.  There is nothing in his speech delivery, press conferences, or one on ones in interviews that indicate that he has English skills to write this book.  His grasp of the English language when talking without a teleprompter is at times inarticulate which makes it virtually impossible for him to write this book.  Then we have learned over time that some of the instances in the book came from Ayers' life not from Obama's.  Is Obama ever going to tell the truth about the book or are members of the mainstream media going to investigate and admit that Bill Ayers wrote this book for Obama.

Several years ago when Ayers made the comment he wrote the book, it made perfect sense.  Then Jack Cashill proved through various means that Ayers was the author but the mainstream press continued on with their adoration of Obama's writing skills in this book even when he couldn't give a speech without a teleprompter or a press conference without someone telling him what to say.  This lackluster and inept media with a liberal agenda helped give us Obama with their cover-ups for him not only during the general election but now as President.  We hold the media and their covering for Obama partially responsibility for mess Obama and his people have gotten this Country in with debt that was unimaginable three years ago.  Heads would roll if we had any integrity left in management of news organizations.

Few members of the media covered his Czar appointments with the staffs that has increased the White House budget considerably.  He is using Czars instead of cabinet secretaries to do his bidding but the vast majority of the media stays silent.  Are members of the media going to ask to interview Bill Ayers about writing Obama's book?  We will have to see it before we believe it is possible for the White House Press Corps and mainstream media to get a backbone with some integrity. 

Glad to see Bill Ayers come out once more about Dreams from my Father and explain he wrote the book.  When people like Ayers jump off the Obama bus, you can bet he is in even more trouble now with a lot of liberals over the War in Libya.

March 27, 2011
Ayers affirms he wrote Dreams from my Father
Jack Cashill

Last Thursday evening at Montclair State University, with a video camera rolling, Bill Ayers volunteered that yes indeed he had written the acclaimed Barack Obama memoir, Dreams from My Father.

Unprompted, Ayers also noted that while Dreams deserves its praise, Obama's second opus, Audacity of Hope, is "more of a political hack book."

Not surprisingly, Ayers retreated into irony as he ended the session. "Yeah, yeah," he said after confirming again that he wrote Dreams, "And if you help me prove it, I'll split the royalties with you. Thank you very much."

With his final comment, the Ayers-friendly audience laughed in relief. The media will laugh nervously upon seeing the video as well. The White House will not.

Barack Obama knows what I know and what the people who have read my book, "Deconstructing Obama," know: Bill Ayers is the principal craftsman behind Dreams. The evidence is overwhelming.

Ayers also established, as I have contended from the beginning, that he is not the author of Audacity of Hope. Although Obama claims unique authorship of this book too, it was, as Ayers suggests, a disingenuous feint to the center written by committee.

Worse for Obama still, Ayers knows that the story he and Obama contrived in Dreams is false in many key details. The fact that Donald Trump has proved willing to challenge that story has got to make the White House even more apprehensive.

As was obvious in his speech at Montclair, Ayers does not like the application of force in Libya, and this may have been his own way of retaliating. Consider it a shot across Obama's bow. The White House will.

Source:  American Thinker Blog

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Secretary of Defense Gates on Odessey Dawn: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya

If there is no threat to the United States or its interests by Libya, why are we sending our military into the skies of Iraq as part of the UN Odessey Dawn?

There had been no plans to do a post today until Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC 'This Week' hosted this morning by Jake Tapper. Hard to believe they paid big bucks to the former CNN correspondent Christine Amanpour to host 'This Week'when Jake Tapper is so good and she is horrible as a host. Tapper should be doing the Sunday morning ABC show every week -- we would actually get the facts not spin and be willing to watch instead of waiting for what was said to come out. Don't want to start a Sunday morning off by watching Amanpour.

Why some people still push Hillary Clinton for President is beyond us and for anyone who needs reminded read her remarks this morning from 'This Week' which are highlighted in the Hot Air article below. She doesn't understand the Constitution or the War Powers Act (WPA) any better than Obama.
Constitutional division of War Powers:

The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires there to be:
“(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”
before a President can send US military forces into a new conflict.
The WPA is pretty straight forward and we certainly don't see the wiggle room that Clinton has taken.  It is becoming more apparent that Clinton and Obama ignored not only the Constitution but the WPA rushing the United States into this conflict in Libya without consulting Congress. As reported earlier, Vice President Joe Biden as a Senator said that he would start impeachment against any President ignoring the WPA. Looks to us like Obama and Clinton need impeached after this fiasco in Libya ignoring the Constitutional duties and the WPA.

Clinton brags about the coalition the United States (Clinton) has put together but it is way smaller than WWII and half the size of the Bush Coalition on Iraq plus Bush spent six months getting Congressional approval before launching the strike on Iraq which is a huge difference than the Obama/Clinton days rush to war. Add to the fact that Obama launched the war effort while in Brazil by a recorded message and you have two people who are so far over their head in governing.

Obama and Clinton in this imperial administration are creating a very dangerous precedent and putting our military in harm's way without regard to Congress. A Republican President would have been aggressively attacked by the likes of Obama and Clinton when they were in the Senate for doing what those two have done.

Now we have the Secretary of Defense finally admitting there is no vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn was launched. Wonder if someday Gates, Obama and Hillary are going to admit that the rebels in Western Libya who they are supporting are members of Islamic Jihadists aligned with Al Qaeda? Clinton should have been the first to admit the fact since the State Department has the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed as a terrorist group in Libya. Why let a little detail like that stand in the way.

What started out this morning as a post about Gates and Clinton is now turning into much more. While researching the State Department Designated Terrorist Group, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), we discovered that the United States has probably been funneling arms to the rebels for sometime. Guess that little fact is the reason that Obama left the door open on arming the rebels. We also learned that On November 3, 2007, the LIFG was welcomed into Al Qaeda.  Since this LIFG is officially part of Al Qaeda so does that mean we are fighting alongside Al Qaeda now thanks to Obama and Clinton?

As mentioned earlier we are now learning that the United States has been funneling arms to this terrorist organization as they consider them rebels against Gadhafi. The CIA is really lame if they were involved in this operation because even the State Department website lists the LIFD as terrorists with known ties to Al Qaeda. The New American.com has a must read, well researched article about the LIFD:
The organization is officially on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. But according to countless news reports, the U.S. government has been covertly funneling arms to the Libyan rebels for weeks, via Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other nations.

Islamic extremists around the world have actually announced their support of the Libyan rebels as well. And as Raven Clabough pointed out in an article for The New American, a powerful coalition of leftist and globalist forces are also backing the war against Gadhafi’s regime.
The more I read from the article, the scarier all of this has become. Looks like Obama/Clinton got the United States involved in Libya on the side of Al Qaeda to oust Gadhafi. This whole effort in Libya to protect civilians makes no sense when Obama and others in Administration are saying they want Gadhafi taken out in favor of the rebels.  The UN Resolution specifically calls for civilians to be protected and forbids targeting of Gadhafi but Obama and Clinton seemed to be ignoring the UN Resolution as well. Was Gadhafi trying to rid Libya of Al Qaeda? We will probably never know the truth because we are sure not getting the truth from Obama or Clinton.

This excerpt from the The New American.com should make most Americans stop and ask the question, "What is the United States doing involved in Libya?"

The Obama administration’s UN-backed military intervention against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is aiding al-Qaeda, which, according to media reports citing high-level commanders in the terror group and Libyan rebel leaders, is deeply tied to the revolution. When the dust settles, the anti-American Islamic extremists could easily emerge as the new rulers of that nation, or at least a part of it. And al-Qaeda is already reportedly grabbing up  (see excerpt below) advanced military weaponry there. 

AL-QAEDA'S offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad's President says.

Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many surface-to-air missiles were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was "100 per cent sure" of his assertion.

"The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.
Ironically, perhaps, Gadhafi has been claiming for weeks that al-Qaeda and drug use were responsible for the uprisings. "Bin Laden ... this is the enemy who is manipulating people," he told state television in late February. "Do not be swayed by bin Laden."

Most observers assumed the allegations were deliberate lies or the delusions of a madman trying to keep the reins of power. But it turns out that the claims of al-Qaeda involvement were at least partially correct.

The man identified in news reports as the leader of Libya’s rebellion, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, actually battled U.S. and coalition forces during the invasion of Afghanistan a decade ago. He was captured in 2002, handed over to U.S. authorities, and eventually released in Libya in 2008. Now, al-Hasidi, with U.S. and international air support, is supposedly leading the anti-Gadhafi revolution.

A Reuters report citing Qatar-based Gulf News said earlier this month — before Western intervention became official — that senior al-Qaeda commander Abu Yahya al-Libi released a videotaped message urging rebels in Libya to continue the battle. He also warned that failure to topple the Gadhafi regime would be unacceptable.

“The Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Kaddafi for more than 40 years.... He used the Libyans as a testing ground for his violent, rambling and disgusting thoughts,” the alleged terrorist leader said in the video. "Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured.”

The al-Qaeda leader also blasted the U.S. government and other Western regimes — now fighting the same battle he praised — for propping up dictatorships in the region. By press time, Gulf News was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the video posted on Jihadist websites.

More recently, Libyan rebel leader al-Hasidi, who fought U.S. troops in Afghanistan, offered another startling revelation. He admitted in an interview with an Italian newspaper that Islamic warriors from Libya, whom he had recruited to battle Western forces in Iraq, are now actually fighting alongside U.S. and international forces to help topple Kaddafi.

The Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled "Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,” quoted al-Hasidi as saying that his warriors "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists." He also praised al-Qaeda, saying they are “good Muslims ... fighting against the invader."

According to U.S. and British government sources cited by the paper, al-Hasidi is part of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The organization represents the second largest contingent of foreign fighters in Iraq battling coalition forces.
Excerpt: Please read more details at The New American.com

Ed Morrisey's comments at Hot Air from the interview this morning on ABC by Jake Tapper with Gates and Clinton are very telling about how little Hillary Clinton regards the Constitution or the War Powers Act as she spins and lies:

Gates: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn
Ed Morrisey
Hot Air
March 27, 2011, 10:15 a.m.

Jake Tapper reminds ABC why they foolishly spent money on Christiane Amanpour last year for the anchor job on This Week with a tough joint interview of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Tapper asks Gates exactly what vital national interest the US has in Libya and what kind of imminent threat to our security Moammar Gaddafi posed at the beginning of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Gates says … none in either case:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

Hillary felt the need to swoop to the rescue. She claimed that Obama didn’t need to go to Congress because this coalition is so darned multilateral:

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not go to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.
Obviously, the Secretary of State has trouble with both math and the law. There is no “multilateral” waiver in either the WPR or the Constitution, but even if there were, Obama would be the least likely President to qualify for it. This coalition is the smallest since World War II involving the US in military action, only half the size of George W. Bush’s Iraq War coalition.

She also fails vocabulary test in her claim that the mission has a limited timeframe. Later, Gates says that no one knows how long this will drag on:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

"Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.
Excerpt: Read more at Hot Air
Tomorrow night you can tune in and watch Obama lie on his 'war' in Libya as he addresses the Nation. 

Friday, March 25, 2011

NY Times: Islamist Group Is Rising Force in a New Egypt

First it was the Washington Post on Libya this week and now the New York Times on Egypt who are no longer falling for the spin of Obama and his advisers or the SoS Clinton and her mouthpieces. However bad we perceive all of the problems to be in Libya and Egypt along with other parts of the Middle East, it has to be a lot worse to get these two newspapers to take on Obama and his agenda.

Former President Carter lost Iran but Obama seems set on a course to lose most of the countries in the Middle East to Islamic fundamentalists. Is this what Obama wanted all along? If it is not, he sure took the wrong path. The Obama Administration set out almost immediately after taking office to try and convince Americans that we had nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood but even the New York Times tells a different story in Egypt including calling them an Islamist Group.

It is now time for the entire media to stop the cover-up for the Obama agenda and report the facts not spin. This new press secretary Carney is nothing but a spinner for Obama who doesn't hesitate to misstate the facts if it benefits Obama. If anyone gets the truth out of him on something that is very important it would be a shock.

This is actually a frightening article about what is happening in Egypt including the fact that the military who opposed the Muslim Brotherhood now seem to have thrown in with them. The dominoes are beginning to fall and the Muslim Brotherhood is stepping into the vacuums that are being created. How many more countries are going to fall when idealistic young people start the movement and then when it takes hold find themselves on the outside looking in at the Muslim Brotherhood in charge? The Brotherhood will make their life even more controlled as we have seen over the years in Iran. Bet it is a safe bet that they are going to look back on Mubarak someday and wish he or someone like him was back in charge.

Islamist Group Is Rising Force in a New Egypt

Published: March 24, 2011

CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.

As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.

“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”

There is a battle consuming Egypt about the direction of its revolution, and the military council that is now running the country is sending contradictory signals. On Wednesday, the council endorsed a plan to outlaw demonstrations and sit-ins. Then, a few hours later, the public prosecutor announced that the former interior minister and other security officials would be charged in the killings of hundreds during the protests.

Egyptians are searching for signs of clarity in such declarations, hoping to discern the direction of a state led by a secretive military council brought to power by a revolution based on demands for democracy, rule of law and an end to corruption.

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is also regarded warily by some religious Egyptians, who see it as an elitist, secret society. These suspicions have created potential opportunities for other parties.

About six groups from the ultraconservative Salafist school of Islam have also emerged in the era after President Hosni Mubarak’s removal, as well as a party called Al Wassat, intended as a more liberal alternative to the Brotherhood.

In the early stages of the revolution, the Brotherhood was reluctant to join the call for demonstrations. It jumped in only after it was clear that the protest movement had gained traction. Throughout, the Brotherhood kept a low profile, part of a survival instinct honed during decades of repression by the state.

The question at the time was whether the Brotherhood would move to take charge with its superior organizational structure. It now appears that it has.

“The Brotherhood didn’t want this revolution; it has never been a revolutionary movement,” said Mr. Zarwan of the International Crisis Group. “Now it has happened; they participated cautiously, and they realize they can set their sights higher.”

But in these early stages, there is growing evidence of the Brotherhood’s rise and the overpowering force of Islam.

Excerpt:  Read More at the New York Times

FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades

This is just another example in the long list that Obama's Administration is getting involved in our daily lives. Banning drugs from over the counter that have been around for decades with no problems is beyond ridiculous. Is this a political payback to big pharmaceutical companies since their patents are expiring? We are beginning to wonder how much some of these rulings by various agencies are involved with polical payback to organizations and people who donated big bucks to his campaign because of what his Administration is doing makes little sense.

While this is going at the Federal level, some legislators in Oklahoma have targeted allergy medicine to be by prescription only. Meth lab owners have found a way around the law that requires an individual to sign for certain allergy medication at the pharmacy even though it is over the counter and not prescription. Because the lawbreakers have found a way around the law, the legislators want to punish those of us who need the allergy medicine by requiring us to get a prescription which will add significantly to the costs. Why not have a data base that tracks how much you buy and investigate those who buy an excessive amount? I could drive to Texas to get my allergy medicine cheaper than paying a doctor for the prescription. Arrest the people who are breaking the law and quit bothering honest people.

What next? Are they going to regulate what time we get up and go to bed?

FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For DecadesMarch 24, 2011
David Fuchs

As Techdirt recently discussed, the drug pipeline is running dry, as Big Pharma's patents are beginning to expire, and the drug companies are freaking out. For years they have been spending more money on research and testing and getting fewer results. This year alone they are going to have 11 patents expire on drugs that bring in approximately $50 billion in revenue to the big pharma firms. Of course, the flip side to this is that consumers can start saving about 95% on the price of those drugs, as generics hit the market. The drug companies have gotten to a point where the incremental increases in efficiencies are so small as to be meaningless.

What is coming is more personalized and targeted treatments for diseases -- treatments that do not require bulk production of a specific chemical, but individual testing and personalized care, and not lifetime treatments and repeat sales, but cures. The treatments will be expensive to begin with, but they will become less expensive over time. The business model of healthcare is about to change dramatically, and Big Pharma needs to do something to maintain their profits. Unfortunately, they seem to have chosen the path of regulating the competition out of existence, rather than competing and innovating.

One way the drug companies have been coping is to repackage and rebrand health food supplements. Drugs like Lovaza, which is nothing more than the fish oil you can get in health food stores, and lovastatin which has been in use for roughly a thousand years (800 AD) in the form of red yeast rice. In the case of lovastatin, the FDA banned the supplements because they are "identical to a drug and, thus, subject to regulation as a drug." That is very convenient for the drug company, which now charges monopoly rents on the product -- which can increase prices at ridiculous levels.

More recently, the FDA banned 500 prescription drugs that had been on the market and working for years. To be fair, it was really 50-100 drugs (pdf), made by different companies, but that just highlights how there was actual competition in the marketplace for these drugs, which has now been removed. For all of the drugs, there is either a high-priced prescription version, or all the small manufacturers have been removed, leaving a virtual monopoly for one or more larger companies. This process began in 2006 when the FDA decided to remove marketed unapproved drugs (pdf).

The reasoning is that these drugs weren't ever technically "approved" by the FDA. While the FDA has been around for about a century, the business of having the FDA first approve drugs before they could go on the market came about closer to fifty years ago, and a bunch of "unapproved drugs" that were in common usage before that never got approved. The FDA is targeting many of those, even if they have a long history in the marketplace. Conveniently, of course, there always seems to be a pharma company with a monopolized substitute ready.

In 2006 the first "new" monopoly that was created by this FDA process was for the malaria drug quinine sulfate. This left only Mutual Pharmaceutical Company to manufacture quinine in the US (pdf). While malaria is not a disease that affects many people in the US, it is big business worldwide. Malaria causes 300 to 500 million infections and over 1 million deaths each year. Treating this disease with quinine used to cost pennies a day. In fact, the British turned this treatment into a cocktail, the gin and tonic (quinine water).

Another drug removed was the antihistamine carbinoxamine, which was created prior to needing FDA approval, in the early 1950s. It was approved by the FDA in a slightly modified form in 2006. It is now sold exclusively by Mikart, Inc and Pamlab, LLC with no future competition because the FDA has banned all 120 other versions of carbinoxamine. You can imagine just how much that must increase the profits for Mikart and Pamlab on carbinoxamine, though that seems to come at the expense of consumers.

It's really nice being granted a government monopoly.

As for the drugs now being banned in this latest purge, you can argue that it's not really 500 drugs, because many are different combinations of the same 50 to 100 drugs. To be sold, these disapproved drugs will require drug trials and certification -- a massive and expensive process. Under current law, after successful completion of FDA trials these drugs will be granted approval. But in every case these trials are almost certainly not necessary. And, "coincidentally" in almost every case, there is a chemically similar patented version ready to go. This is a pure money grab: replacing old tried and true drugs, with monopoly priced prescription drugs. It just requires removing competing drugs from the market to increase profits.

And with that, I'm off to go have a gin and tonic, while it's still legal...

Source: Tech Dirt

Obama Fails as President and Commander in Chief

Obama failed to get Congressional approval to put our military into a wartime situation over the skies of Libya in an United Nations no fly zone.  At the same time Obama through his UN Secretary Rice ensured that our pilots would have their hands tied with the UN resolution they can only bomb when they see the Gadhafi troops attacking civilians.  Obama has failed his role not only as President but as the Commander in Chief by not getting Congressional approval and putting out pilots in harms way with their hands tied thanks to a UN Resolution. 

Who does Obama think is going to be responsible for funding his wartime effort in Libya?  It is the Congress and why he needed their approval to spend as much money as this is going to cost each and every day before action commences.  A President has no authority to decide on a whim to send troops.  Congress needs to be part of the decision making and looks like Obama has a reading comprehension of his powers under the Constitution.   Is Libya a threat to the United States should have been the first question and the answer is a resounding NO!

Handing the operation off to NATO control is bait and switch as the vast majority of resources will still be the United States weaponry.  No other NATO country has the airpower of the United States and Obama/Clinton know that so no matter how they spin it, US resources are going to be used.  Those two are out of their league in this action of getting us into a 3rd wartime situation with Iraq and Afghanistan operations still ongoing.

Details of the timeline are slowly coming out of when Obama made the decision and when the Congress was notified.  Noted that Obama made the decision when Secretary of Defense Gates was traveling overseas.  Who was part of making this decision?  This paragraph may be the understatement of the year and it is also an indictment of the lackluster media we have that protects Obama and spins for him daily:

"I am completely mystified," says former top Bush aide Karl Rove, who supports the Libya intervention, "that this administration, of all administrations, makes a decision on a Tuesday night and does not bother to call anybody in Congress until Friday morning, 90 minutes before the policy is going to be executed, to tell them what is going to happen. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had tried to do that? We'd have been barbecued!"
How many people did Obama call in Congress -- the vast majority found out when he gave his recorded speech from Brazil. Just who did he call? Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi? Crickets are chirping on who was notified by Obama 90 minutes before the action commenced against Libya.  Did the White House Press Corps bother to ask or have they not been able to ask any questions of Obama.  You cannot trust his aides to tell the truth.  In fact truth took the first hit in this no-fly zone operation in Libya when the pilots targeted the Gadhafi compound when Gadhafi was not supposed to be a target.

President Obama should resign for his dereliction of duty for sending our troops into harm's way without Congressional action. Even his Vice President Joe Biden said while a member of the Senate that a President should be impeached who doesn't get approval of the Congress to commit American soldiers to a wartime action.  Calling several members of Congress 90 minutes before action commenced is not enough when there is no reason for US involvement in the United Nations humanitarian mission in Libya.  Has the United States gotten involved in other places where the UN has seen dictators attacking their own people? 
What a sorry excuse for a press corps for not having 'barbecued' Obama for his actions like they did President Bush over much smaller incidents. The double standard is alive and well and with the exception of a few reporters, the rest of the broadcast White House Press Corps should resign for their biased reporting in spinning for Obama. There are only two who stand out -- Jake Tapper, ABC, and Chip Reid, CBS, who refuse to spin but we are having a hard time identifying more of the White House reporters from the broadcast networks that we would call even handed.

Obama fails to grasp the gravity of going to war
By: Byron York 03/24/11 8:05 PM
Chief Political Correspondent http://twitter.com/ByronYork

President Obama is struggling to grasp the repercussions of going to war in Libya.-Carolyn Kaster/AP"I see Obama's visiting the United States," said Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, the president's first full day back in Washington after a spring break diplomatic tour of Latin America. For the White House, it was a touch of well-deserved sarcasm; Obama's absence at the start of the Libyan hostilities, along with his haphazard conversations with members of Congress and his nonexistent effort to prepare the American public for war, left more than a few Washington insiders shaking their heads over how the president could have mishandled things so badly.

Say what you will about the Bush White House. It knew something about preparing Congress and the public for war, having done so before invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. A president needs to lay the foundation for military action by holding extensive briefings for Congress and also by explaining to the American people why action is needed and what it will involve.

That's why veterans of the Bush White House can't quite believe what they are seeing from the supposedly communications-savvy Obama administration.

Read more comments at the Washington Examiner from former members of the Bush White House.
We think the term 'supposedly' used to describe the communications-savvy Obama administration should probably be changed to 'inept' since Jay Carney took over as press secretary.   With Emanuel and Axelrod leaving the White House, the communications has gotten much worse.  We cannot fathom if either Emanuel or Axelrod were still in the White House that Obama would have waited 90 minutes before action commenced to notify the Congress.  They both knew the firestorm that would result in the end.

How many days until a new President takes over? 667 Days, 02 Hours, 11 Minutes, 20 Seconds as of a few minutes ago from Obamaclock.org

Dangerous Breach Suspected at Japan Nuclear Plant

What does this mean? Doubt if anyone knows for sure but the fact that two men wading into water who received burns because the nuclear level was much higher is not good news. Is it the 'sky is falling' news we have been hearing out of a lot of broadcasters? We doubt it. Right now no one knows for sure the danger to the surrounding area. The information became available a little over an hour ago and the experts are still waiting for more details from testing. The good news is that the plants are shut down so a Chernobyl cannot happen in Japan.

What does this possible breach mean? Other than mandatory evacuations, we have no idea. If there is a breach there will be a release of more contaminents but the worst thing that could happen would be a core meltdown and all sources say that is not going to happen.

In other developments

Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama said later that plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. was issued a "very strong warning" for safety violations and that a thorough review would be conducted once the situation stabilizes.

Looks like Tepco is finally going to be investigated which looks like it should have happened a long time ago. We are still shocked that they were allowed to put spent rods in pools on top of buildings in an earthquake zone.

We will update this story as more details are released.

Dangerous Breach Suspected at Japan Nuclear Plant
Mar 25, 2011 – 9:10 AM READING THIS NOW

Jay Alabaster and Shino Yuasa

TOKYO -- A suspected breach in the core of a reactor at the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant could mean more serious radioactive contamination, Japanese officials revealed Friday, as the prime minister called the country's ongoing fight to stabalize the plant "very grave and serious."

A somber Prime Minister Naoto Kan sounded a pessimistic note at a briefing hours after nuclear safety officials announced what could be a major setback in the urgent mission to stop the plant from leaking radiation, two weeks after a devastating earthquake and tsunami disabled it.

"The situation today at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant is still very grave and serious. We must remain vigilant," Kan said. "We are not in a position where we can be optimistic. We must treat every development with the utmost care."

The uncertain situation halted work at the nuclear complex, where dozens had been trying feverishly to stop the overheated plant from leaking dangerous radiation. The plant has leaked some low levels of radiation, but a breach could mean a much larger release of contaminants.

Suspicions of a possible breach were raised when two workers waded into water 10,000 times more radioactive than is typical and suffered skin burns, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.


Previous radioactive emissions have come from intentional efforts to vent small amounts of steam through valves to prevent the core from bursting. However, releases from a breach could allow uncontrolled quantities of radioactive contaminants to escape into the surrounding ground or air.

Government spokesman Yukio Edano said "safety measures may not be adequate" and warned that may contribute to rising anxiety among people about how the disaster is being managed.

"We have to make sure that safety is secured for the people working in that area. We truly believe that is incumbent upon us," the chief Cabinet secretary told reporters.

Edano said people living 12 to 20 miles (20 to 30 kilometers) from the plant should still be safe from the radiation as long as they stay indoors. But since supplies are not being delivered to the area fast enough, he said it may be better for residents in the area to voluntarily evacuate to places with better facilities.

"If the current situation is protracted and worsens, then we will not deny the possibility of (mandatory) evacuation," he said.


Excerpt: Read More at AOL News about how Japan is coping with the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami. Very sad situation for those areas of Japan hit by the tsunami.

In a blow to the Japanese economy, Nissan Motors may move part of its engine plant line to the United States because of the severe damage their plant took in Japan.

One thing we will say in high praise of the Japanese is that they have had zero looting. Some thugs in this country need to take a look and see what you do in an emergency situation and that is help your neighbors not steal from them. The looting that goes on in this Country after a disaster is shameful.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Candidate Obama versus President Obama!

Is Obama calling for Mission Creep in Libya?

CNN, the network that loved to go after President Bush for overreaching with our military and still disses him, now seems to be pushing mission creep in Libya after their interview with Obama. Has Obama, aka the Bosnian Bill Clinton, left the the door open to arm the rebels in this interview? Sure sounds like it. Looks like CNN is back to pushing the Obama agenda after Obama granted them this interview. We knew CNN playing it down the middle would never last.

Has anyone in this Administration bothered to look at their own State Department designation of these rebels in eastern Libya before they want to arm them? The eastern area of Libya that has been anti-American for a long time.

Today, there is little doubt that eastern Libya, like other parts of the Arab world, is experiencing a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor, expressed in demands for political freedom and economic reforms. But there also is a dark history to eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
If French embed reports are correct, the group Obama and now CNN wants to help are majahideen. When is an adult going to say NO! Since this article from National Review and Pajamas Media, more sources are saying these rebels are Jihadists.

From National Review:
Why do intervention proponents insist on calling them rebels when they call themselves mujahideen — Muslim warriors fighting a jihad?

At Pajamas, John Rosenthal has details of a report by French journalist Marc de Chalvron, who was embedded with the Libyan “rebels” before they were turned back by Qaddafi’s forces. They refer to their battle as “the jihad” — Islamic holy war. (At least that’s what they interpret jihad to mean. They apparently haven’t gotten the memo from Georgetown that jihad is really a peaceful internal struggle for personal betterment, a solemn commitment to brush after every meal, or whatever ISNA is calling jihad this week).

The French report shows the “rebels” proclaiming that “Now, the time of jihad has arrived!” and, of course, screaming, “Allahu Akbar!” as they fire their guns into the air.
Rand Corporation fellow Angel Rabasa at CNN says we should arm the rebels just as we did in Bosnia. We all know how well that turned out as Clinton bombed the Chinese Embassy during bombing action. The Clinton push to involve NATO in the Bosnian conflict leading to an undeclared war started in February 1994 and we are still in Bosnia today 17 years later. Is this what we have to look forward to in Libya if they don't oust Gadhafi?

Is Obama following the Clinton playbook to get reelected since he has left the door open to provide arms to the rebels (jihadists) hoping it makes him look Presidential. Is the next thing going to be advisers to go with the weapons? Obama on Libya is beginning to sound like Kennedy/LBJ in Vietnam and Clinton in Bosnia. Why were we ever involved in Vietnam, Bosnia, or now Libya? Carter didn't do mission creep, he just lost the whole country of Iran to the Islamic radicals.

Angel Rabasa at CNN comments on arming the rebels:

The U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized the no-fly zone and all necessary measures to protect civilians under attack in Libya did not call for Gadhafi’s ouster. There are reports that some Arab countries are considering deploying ground troops to Libya. But if they do, their role would likely be protection of the civilian population in areas outside Gadhafi’s control. That outcome would still leave Gadhafi in power in western Libya.

That leaves few effective options if the United States wants to prevent the crisis in Libya from leading to a prolonged armed conflict or de facto partition that leaves a ruthless, embittered dictator with a terrorist record in control of half the country. That situation could have long-term destabilizing consequences for Libya and the Middle East.

The way out of this conundrum would be for the United States to clarify its goals in Libya. Recognizing that lasting stability could only come about as the result of the removal of Gadhafi from power, the United States and like-minded countries could begin by recognizing the Benghazi government as the legitimate government of Libya. The Libyan National Council is, after all, a government set up by a popular uprising against tyranny and therefore inherently more legitimate than Gadhafi’s government in Tripoli.

The United States also might consider launching an effort to provide the Benghazi government with arms and equipment to defend itself against Gadhafi’s forces and to help it liberate western Libya. The U.S. need not become directly involved in the training and equipping of the Libyan opposition. As with the Bosnia train and equip program, a small U.S. team could help arrange for the purchase and delivery of arms, as well as supply training, possibly by third parties.
Cannot believe any person would bring up Bosnia in comparing it to Libya since we are still in Bosnia. Where does CNN find these people?

Chicago flight too costly for al-Qaida bomb suspect

Reading this sent chills up the spine because the Yemen al-Qaida group is not attacking symbolic targets but is looking for targets of opportunity.

It shows that al-Qaida's Yemen branch does not share Osama bin Laden's desire to attack symbolic targets, preferring instead to strike at targets of opportunity. Like the plot that nearly blew up U.S.-bound cargo planes last year, the cities themselves didn't matter. It's a strategy that has helped the relatively new group quickly become the No. 1 threat to the United States.
This group could strike anyplace, anytime but fortunately they don't look to be well financed if Abdulmutallab, the bomber, chose a cheaper air fare to Detroit versus Chicago or Houston. How long is their lack of big money going to last after they were almost successful with the Detroit Northwest flight being brought down by a bomb?

Why was a non-CIA man, Leon Panetta, chosen to head the CIA? With him and his political appointees at the top of the CIA, the agency has been going through a lack of credibility. It is just one more agency of Obama appointees that are some of the worst we have ever witnessed. While Panetta may be experienced in Government, he never was involved in the workings of the CIA and it shows when he testifies to Congress or makes statements.

In 2012 when the question is asked do you feel safer now then when President Bush was in office, the answer is a resounding NO!!! At times it is like the keystone cops are in charge. How one Administration can have so many inexperienced, incompetent people in high government positions is beyond me except you look at the top of the leadership and see a huge vacuum -- plenty of rhetoric, short on experience even today, and an incompetent whose ideology doesn't match the majority of the American people.

This bomber almost pulled it off but then the Administration botched the questioning by reading him his Miranda rights ASAP on the orders of Holder and his incompetent group of political appointees. The bomber was cooperating and then AG Holder stepped in and the bomber shuts up. Why did Holder step in? It is hard to tell who is the worst in this Administration but Holder is right near the top.

Twenty-two more months to go! The clock is ticking away but not soon enough.

Chicago flight too costly for al-Qaida bomb suspect --------------------
Associated Press

March 24 2011, 8:08 AM CDT

When an admitted al-Qaida operative planned his itinerary for a Christmas 2009 airline bombing, he considered launching the strike in the skies above Houston or Chicago, The Associated Press has learned. But tickets were too expensive, so he refocused the mission on a cheaper destination: Detroit.

The decision is among new details emerging about one of the most sensational terrorism plots to unfold since President Barack Obama took office. It shows that al-Qaida's Yemen branch does not share Osama bin Laden's desire to attack symbolic targets, preferring instead to strike at targets of opportunity. Like the plot that nearly blew up U.S.-bound cargo planes last year, the cities themselves didn't matter. It's a strategy that has helped the relatively new group quickly become the No. 1 threat to the United States.

After the failed bombing and the arrest of suspected bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the question of why Detroit was targeted had gone unanswered. It was previously reported that Abdulmutallab did not specifically choose Christmas for his mission.

Abdulmutallab considered Houston, where he attended an Islamic conference in 2008, current and former counterterrorism officials told the AP. Another person with knowledge of the case said Abdulmutallab also considered Chicago but was discouraged by the cost. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

While the target and timing were unimportant, the mission itself was a highly organized plot that involved one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists and al-Qaida's go-to bomb maker, current and former officials said. Before Abdulmutallab set off on his mission, he visited the home of al-Qaida manager Fahd al-Quso to discuss the plot and the workings of the bomb.

Al-Quso, 36, is one of the most senior al-Qaida leaders publicly linked to the Christmas plot. His association with al-Qaida stretches back more than a decade to his days in Afghanistan when, prosecutors said, bin Laden implored him to "eliminate the infidels from the Arabian Peninsula."

From there he rose through the ranks. He was assigned the job in Aden to videotape the 1998 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors and injured 39 others, but fell asleep. Despite the lapse, he is now a mid-level manager in the organization. Al-Quso is from the same tribe as radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had an operational role in the botched Christmas attack.

In December, al-Quso was designated a global terrorist by the State Department, a possible indication that his role in al-Qaida's Yemen franchise has grown more dangerous.

Al-Quso was indicted on 50 terrorism counts in New York for his role preparing for the Cole attack and served more than five years in prison in Yemen before he was released in 2007. On the FBI's list, al-Quso ranks behind only bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri among the most sought-after al-Qaida terrorists.

After meeting with al-Quso, Abdulmutallab left Yemen in December 2009 and made his way to Ghana, where he paid $2,831 in cash for a round-trip ticket from Nigeria to Amsterdam to Detroit and back.

Abdulmutallab, 24, is charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiring with others to kill 281 passengers and 11 crew members aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. After his arrest, he admitted to the FBI that he intended to blow up the plane and later surfaced in an al-Qaida propaganda video.

Excerpt: The complete article can be viewed at:
Chicago Tribune