More Spin on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab by John Brennan, Obama Counterterrorism Official

Unfortunately, we cannot write what we are thinking about Mr. Brennan. Senator Bond's comment below has already pointed out that John Brennan never said a word about 'mirandizing' this terrorist. Guess Republicans were supposed to channel what Brennan was saying and draw their own conclusions.

Brennan needs to step down after this fiasco when he didn't even tell the Republicans he contacted they had or were going to mirandize this individual. Guess they wanted bi-partisan political cover for the decision to Mirandize but Brennan left out an important part in the discussion.

Lawmakers should have been the last to be called and only briefed on what was happening not trying to get them to agree to something without all the facts. Obama's picks for office are turning out to be disasters. You can add John Brennan to Disaster list.

Is anyone in charge in the White House? Do you feel safer with this group in charge now? We sure don't!

Thanks to Byron York for getting the facts out for everyone to draw their own conclusion including the comments from Senator Bond.

White House: Top GOP leaders didn't object to reading Abdulmutallab his rights
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
02/07/10 11:42 AM EST

Top Obama counterterrorism official John Brennan is blasting Republican lawmakers, accusing them of hypocrisy and of making a "political football" of the administration's decision to grant full American constitutional rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Appearing on "Meet the Press," Brennan said that on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253, Brennan called top Republican lawmakers, telling them that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said. "They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?"

Here is Brennan's full statement, beginning with a question from NBC's David Gregory:

GREGORY: When you briefed some Republicans about how he was going to be treated, were they on board with the administration's decision?

BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond, I spoke to Representatives Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in FBI custody means that there's a process that you follow, as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized? They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we would keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been quite a bit of an outcry after the fact, where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government, that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.

I'm trying to get reaction from some of the lawmakers who were contacted, but it's not clear how strong Brennan's point is. He says he told the Republicans that Abdulmutallab "was cooperating at that point," which suggests that Brennan called the lawmakers before Abdulmutallab stopped talking. It is not clear whether he then re-called them to say that, after a 50-minute interrogation, Abdulmutallab was no longer cooperating. It also appears that Brennan relied on the lawmakers to surmise that Abdulmutallab had been given the Miranda warning, since they were told that he was in FBI custody. And it's not clear whether the lawmakers knew there was no high-value detainee interrogation group to question Abdulmutallab. (Even the Director of National Intelligence didn't know that when he testified at a recent Senate hearing.)

Nevertheless, Brennan seems angry about Republican criticisms of the handling of Abdulmutallab. What is less clear is just what the administration told the lawmakers about it.

UPDATE: Sen. Bond responds, saying Brennan "never told" him of the plan to Mirandize Abdulmutallab. Bond's entire statement:

Brennan never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber -- if he had I would have told him the administration was making a mistake. The truth is that the administration did not even consult our intelligence chiefs, as DNI Blair testified, so it's absurd to try to blame Congressional leaders for this dangerous decision that gave terrorists a five week head start to cover their tracks.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Top-GOP-leaders-didnt-object-to-reading-Abdulmutallab-his-rights-83756337.html#ixzz0esEsitLi

Obama Budget Raises Small Business Tax Rate

Leave it to Obama and his Administration to raise taxes on small business owners at the same time they are touting how they are looking out for them. Word to the wise when Obama starts trying to help your group -- run away as fast as you can. With help like this, people will lose jobs or decide to shut down their business if they have to pay almost 50% in taxes like is in this Obama Budget for small business.

The Obama Budget From Michelle Fields
Friday, February 5, 2010

President Obama is touting all the advantages his budget has for small businesses. In particular, he's talking about using TARP funding (supposedly temporary, to be paid back to taxpayers) for small business lending.

Even if you limit yourself to the tax side of things, though, there are some pro-small business crumbs in the Obama budget: small business expensing is extended, a new jobs credit is created, and small business stock is exempted from capital gains. Good things, all, to one degree or another.

But there is one bad--very bad--tax increase on the small business sector in the Obama budget. Under his plan, the top two income tax rates increase from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Two-thirds of small business profits pay taxes in these bracket levels. Small businesses pass their profits through to their owners, who pay income tax on them. To raise taxes on "the rich" is a laser-beam tax hike aimed at small employers.

Small business owners also have to pay the Medicare portion of the self-employment tax at the high margin. Furthermore, they will face a phaseout of their itemized deductions (Pease) and personal exemptions (PEP) under the Obama budget, unlike 2010 law.

What does that mean for the marginal tax rate on small business activity? Assuming a 5 percent state income tax rate, the calculation is the following for a sole proprietor or general partner (S-corporation owners don't have to pay Medicare tax, so it will be slightly smaller for them):

Excerpt: Read More at ATR.org

Are the F-22 and F-35 the Tip of the Iceberg for Taxpayers?

After reading this article from IBD and starting to write up comments, it hit that this is only the tip of the iceberg in the Air Force for wasting money. It is easy to spot the waste of money when we are talking about a new shiny plane like the F-22 or F-35, but what about other peripheral but extremely necessary systems that are wasting millions and millions of dollars.

Starting next week we will delve into the contracting world of the Air Force -- you will be left shaking your head, shocked, and angry to realize these are your tax dollars at work.

We are going to give you the background that has led up to this point starting in the early 90's when checks and balances pretty much were thrown out the window. Those checks and balances lie at the root of the problem that a lot of things wrong on the F-35 were not discovered a lot earlier. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem as it spans four Presidencies starting with GHW Bush to Barack Obama.

One example of this culture of 'mega and bright, shiny, and new' found its way into the Automatic Test Systems (ATS) group at the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC). We will detail what is happening and how this one small program that is so vital to the weapons systems is wasting millions of tax dollars and planning to to turn that into the billions by their actions. In the process, they will be putting over 60 business entities out of work and hiring lots of civil service.

ATS affects every Air Force weapon system including the F-35 which was promised to have the latest and best ATS ever. Is Lockheed going to deliver that product promised in the contract or are they out of money and will have to rely on the depot?

We filed the Freedom of Information paperwork not only on the ATE but also on the F-35. We received a reply back that was extremely short on data (none) and long on half truths and arrogance on ATE and nothing on the F-35.

With over 100 years of experience between us dealing with the Air Force as military, employees, and contractors, you know when something isn't right. That is what has happened to us when the FOI answer was received.

Read this article below which is excellent, but understand this is only the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned next week for the beginning of a series that details not the F-35 but other systems as well and how it relates to our tax dollars.

F-22 Or F-35: The Plane Truth
Feb 5, 2010

Defense: The administration decision to scrap a proven aircraft in favor of a supposedly cheaper, more flexible replacement is proving to be an expensive mistake. We may wind up defenseless and broke.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that was supposed to be America's frontline fighter for the foreseeable future is in big trouble. Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the general in charge of the program this week amid concerns of spiraling costs and program delays.

Gates also announced he is withholding $614 million in fees from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin. Daniel J. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin's project managers, has acknowledged that the program is running at least six months behind schedule.

Gates was questioned about the program at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. He said he was unaware of a report by a special Pentagon assessment team in late 2008 that found development of the plane could be delayed by 2 1/2 years with $16.6 billion in cost overruns. Judging by his decisions, he is not unaware that the F-35 program, designed to fill the needs of all three services, is in trouble.

After hearing Gates' testimony, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said: "I'm still concerned about whether the services will get the (Joint Strike Fighters) when they need them."
He's right to be concerned: Further program delays will drive up per-unit costs, the wings are literally falling off our F-15s and F-16s, and the administration has killed further production of the F-22 Raptor. With what will we fight?

We've seen this one-size-fits-all, on-the-cheap procurement policy before. The 1960s saw the development of the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental), later the F-111, which was supposed to fill all requirements from being a land-based fighter-bomber to a carrier-based aircraft. It wound up too heavy to be a carrier jet and not fast or agile enough to be in a dogfight. Other aircraft had to be procured to fill those needs.

Production of the F-22 Raptor was capped at 187 in the defense cuts slated for the fiscal 2010 budget, with the last aircraft slated to be delivered in late 2011 or early 2012. It was felt we couldn't afford both an F-22 dedicated to air superiority and the F-35, even though the latter is vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground-defense penetration.

The Raptor is perhaps the only plane that could evade the sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system Russia has contracted to sell Iran. "Only the F-22 can survive in airspace defended by increasingly capable surface-to-air missiles," declares Air Force Association President Mike Dunn.

Source: IBD

IEEE: A Critical Perspective on Climagate

We find this interview on Climategate with Atmosphere Scientist Professor, Dr.John Christy refreshing out of the scientific community whose honest voices are finally being heard. They have been drowned out for years by the Al Gore Global Warming crowd and now a well respected organization like IEEE, he world's leading professional association for the advancement of technology, has conducted an interview with Christy.

With new information coming out weekly, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has been proven right over and over again has he has railed against the 'junk science' that has been put out as facts for years. No one has ever denied that changes occur in warming and cooling in the world, but to predict such dire consequences caused by manmade global warming was a fraud. It fraud/scam worked as it made Al Gore and his cronies wealthy people.

The whole Climategate scam has left people asking why would normally honest scientiests be part of this scam to use fake numbers to push a political agenda? Was their agenda more important then the facts? It is looking more and more like the liberal mindset everyday -- fake but accurate. Honesty seems to mean nothing to the Al Gore Global Warming crowd.

After all this time, the real scientists with the real numbers are now coming forward and we are discovering how much of a scam this all was. Doesn't say a whole lot for all those people who made millions and millions of dollars off this scam headed by Al Gore. Seems Dr. Christy was a thorn in the side of the East Anglican Scientists for years as he was a skeptic. Now he has been proven right.

A Critical Perspective on Climategate
Atmospheric scientist John Christy on the East Anglia e-mails


Photo: Phillip Gentry/The University of Alabama in Huntsville

BY William Sweet // January 2010

John R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Alabama's state climatologist, is an expert on Earth's recent temperature history, as derived from microwave sensors on polar-orbiting satellites. Though he has contributed since the early 1990s to reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the large collaboration of scientists that regularly assesses global warming for the United Nations—Christy considers the expert consensus overstated and unduly alarmist.

IEEE Spectrum: Tell us please about your work on the world's temperature and its significance.

John Christy: Since 1978, we've been able to monitor the bulk atmospheric temperature, which tells you whether heat has been accumulating or not. What we've found is an upward trend over 31 years of about 13/100 of a degree Celsius per decade. But you also see typical ups and downs: During the first two decades, temperatures were fairly flat, and increases were below the three-decade average. But with the big 1997 El Niño, there was a shift upward, and after that, temperatures were flat again but above average.

Spectrum: How does this record from microwave satellite observations differ from the temperature record compiled from other sources?

JC: Readings taken at the surface show 0.16 or 0.17 degrees of warming per decade—a bit more than the microwave readings. That may not seem such a great difference, but climate models indicate that if greenhouse gases are causing this warming, the upper atmosphere ought to be warming by about 1.2 times that of the surface, not less.

Spectrum: Is this discrepancy at the heart of your issues with what's often described as the "consensus temperature record"? Professors at the University of East Anglia, in the UK, have played a big role in establishing that record, and I see that in their hacked e-mail, you are one of the individuals who was mentioned most frequently in a negative way.

JC: They rely on readings from surface thermometers, but those have often been affected by developments like urbanization and deforestation, so they are not a precise proxy for what's going on in the atmosphere, where greenhouse gases are supposed to have their largest effect.

Spectrum: What has been the relationship between the East Anglia researchers and Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research? (Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher set up Hadley two decades ago, locating it with Britain's prestigious Meteorological Office, to be a world authority on all matters having to do with climate change.)

JC: I was a visiting scientist at Hadley for two summers and got to see firsthand how they work together with East Anglia. At the end of the month, East Anglia's Phil Jones would send the land data to Hadley, which would take a critical look and combine that with their sea-surface data, and then the two teams would release what would be known as the HadCRU (for East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) temperature data set.

Spectrum: So what's described as the "consensus temperature history" is, in effect, the Hadley-East Anglia history?

JC: Right.

Excerpt: Read More at IEEE

Our thanks to Dr. John Christy for agreeing to do this interview with IEEE to get the facts out in public. We need a lot more Dr. John Christy's in this Country who know the facts to speak out and make their voices heard.

Gangster government targets Toyota

Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner has one of the best editorials we have read about the Toyota gas pedal problem that the Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood pictured below is pushing. We also believe LaHood is trying to hurt Toyota sales in favor of Government Motors. He is also still mad at Ford as well as they didn't take the GM/Chyrsler deal so we figure foreign car non-union automobile manufactures are next. What is he going to do to Ford next to push Government Motors. Without the "Cash for Clunkers" the domestic UAW car companies would not have done so well.

His statement yesterday to drop everything and go get your Toyota fixed immediated smacked of scare tactics on his part. Now today we read as CNN Breaking News, the brakes on the Prius by Toyota could have a brake problem. This man is nothing but a union stooge of the UAW and a grandstander to boot.


Been driving a Toyota Highlander since it was bought new in 2006 and love it -- best car I have ever driven and yes it is an SUV. Do a lot of driving to other states and this SUV is by far the most comfortable vehicle I have ever owned. We took it to the Sun Bowl in El Paso and when you get out of the car you are not tired and achy like you are in most sedans. Would I recommend a Highlander to any one looking for a new or used car -- absolutely. Would I recommend Toyota dealerships? Absolutely -- best people we have ever dealt with.

Our Family knows all about Government Motors and poor quality that went into the engine of our Buick. The radiator was undersized for the vehicle. How do you manage to do that? Then we went to Ford which had a brake problem after 2 1/2 years on a new car and then we stupidly bought another Taurus which also needed a lot of work long before it should have. After that when looking around we decided to try Toyota. We ended up getting my SUV and two other Toyota Matrix for college graduations. The amount of problems we have had with all three Toyotas, you could put in a thimble.

Mr. LaHood doesn't understand most Toyota owners if he thinks this is going to stop us from buying Toyota. If I was looking for a brand new car, I would buy a Toyota because all their cars will have been gone over with a fine tooth comb after this. Mr. LaHood can pull out all his dirty tricks because Toyota is NOT a UAW shop and frankly that is why we went to Toyota. The one brand of GM that was worth something, Saturn, Government Motors put out of business.

Read this editorial by Mark Tapscott and tell us if you don't agree that the "Gangster Government" is out to do the bidding of the UAW against Toyota. The UAW did a good job of tanking Government Motors and Chrysler so now they are taking aim at Toyota with the backing of this Chicago Thug Government that Obama is operating. He has to feel perfectly at home surrounded by his loyal thugs from Chicago. Hear them talk and they leave no doubt they are as Michael Barone puts it -- gangster government. That is the only way Chicago has operated for years under the Daley Machine.

Please visit the Washington Examiner for more of Mark Tapscott's editorials. We normally excerpt, but this was so good we wanted everyone to read what Tapscott had to say because we believe he nailed LaHood and this Administration on their tactics against Toyota.

Gangster government targets Toyota
Examiner Editorial February 4, 2010

What is it about the automotive industry that inspires such thuggish attitudes in the Obama administration? The Examiner's Michael Barone coined the term "gangster government" to describe threats by the White House last spring against Chrysler creditors who had the temerity to insist that bankruptcy laws be followed in the bailout of the perennially ailing third member of the once-fabled Detroit Big Three. Now along comes Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood muttering darkly that "we're not finished with Toyota" in the controversy over sticking gas pedals in vehicles made and sold in America by the Japanese automaker.

The basis for these threats is little more than anecdote-based suspicions that an electronic malady related to electro-magnetic interference from power lines might be the problem instead of the mechanical wear identified by Toyota engineers.

Regardless, LaHood, headline-chasing congressmen like Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and a chorus of Naderite auto safety nannies led by former National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration Administrator Joan Claybrook are demanding that Toyota submit to a punishing new round of subpoenas, hearings, and media inquisition. It's not enough that Toyota -- the auto industry's perennial leader on respected measures of initial and long-term quality -- has already taken the unprecedented step of suspending production and sales of eight of its most popular models, undertaken a crash course to identify the cause of the problem, and guaranteed a fix for every one of the 2.3 million affected owners.

Given the Obama administration's catering to one of its favorite special interest groups, the United Auto Workers union, during the government's bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler last year, it is difficult to avoid wondering whether Toyota has become a victim of the Chicago Way of dealing with competitors. Toyota overtook GM several years ago as the world's leading automaker. The potential of the current sticking gas pedal controversy to inflict damage on Toyota here in its largest single market is seen in the January sales figures. Toyota sales are down 16 percent while GM is up 14 percent (Ford, which declined a government bailout last year, is up 25 percent, while Chrysler is down 8 percent).

Keep the controversy going and odds are good that Toyota sales will continue to drop. The biggest losers besides American consumers will be the men and women who own and work at Toyota's 1,200 U.S. dealerships and the 30,000 Americans who build Toyotas in its five factories here. LaHood might as well have said "Nice car company ya got there, be a shame if anything happened to it."

Source: Washington Examiner

Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) supports Penn State investigation into 'ClimateGate' figure Michael Mann

We agree with Senator Inhofe and also would like to know if Mann is going to continue to get grants to study Global Warming from the Obama Administration?

Global Warming is turning into being more of a hoax then we originally thought and every day points to Sen Inhofe being correct in labeing it "Junk Science."

Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) supports Penn State investigation into 'ClimateGate' figure Michael Mann
Red Dirt Report
February 3, 2010
Matt Dempsey

WASHINGTON, DC - Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, responded to Penn State's announcement today concerning its investigation into possible research misconduct by Dr. Michael Mann.
Penn State's internal inquiry found further investigation is warranted to determine if Dr. Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."

"I want to commend Penn State for recognizing the seriousness of the allegations leveled at Dr. Mann by launching an initial inquiry into whether he committed research misconduct," Senator Inhofe said. "As the University moves to the next phase of its investigation, I believe the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation should also commence an investigation to examine possible violations of federal laws and policies governing taxpayer-funded research.

Excerpt: Read more at reddirtreport.com

Administration changes story on Christmas Day bomber

We have one word to say about this -- SPIN! We sincerely believe this Administration is unable to tell the truth when it comes to National Security.

Why is it that Obama and this Administration do not want the CIA Interrogators to get their hands on terrorists in this Country like Abdulmutallab who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day? This question caused us to look further into what is happening in Nigeria and places like Kenya in Africa where his cousin, Odinga, became Prime Minster based on threats and rioting after the election. In the search, ties between Obama relataives and alleged terrorists kept popping up. If this is true, how far does the Obama extended family go into the world of terrorism in Africa and/or into the Middle East? We don't have the answers but someone must.


The American people have a right to know what is going on with this President and his people in the White House refusing to acknowledge terrorism and wanting them tried in federal court. Trying in federal court makes no sense since a lot of the evidence that has been gathered would be thrown out. Is that what Obama and Holder want? Won't any regular news organization dig into the connections between Obama's African family and terrorists or will they continue to spin and cover-up for Obama?

We cannot even get most media interested in the organization that launched his career into community organization which was a spin-off of Alinksy. We will leave that for another day when i's have been dotted and t's have been crossed.

Bottom line is how do we know when Obama and his team are lying on Abdulmutallab -- the answer is we don't and far be it from us to expect the mainstream to investigate when they can print White House spin. Takes media like the Washington Examiner and others to get at the truth and even then they get stonewalled at times by Obama and the White House.

Administration changes story on Christmas Day bomber

By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent02/03/10 7:57 AM EST

A number of news organizations are reporting that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the al Qaeda soldier accused of trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet, is now cooperating with authorities and has provided useful intelligence to terrorist investigators.

The Washington Post, citing "Obama administration sources," reports Abdulmutallab "has been providing FBI interrogators with useful intelligence about his training and contacts since last week." The Politico quotes a "law enforcement source" saying Abdulmutallab has provided "useful, current intelligence." And ABC News, citing a "senior administration official," reports that the intelligence "has been disseminated throughout the intelligence community."

The reports represent a striking turnaround in the administration's position. Ever since the public learned that authorities had just 50 minutes to question Abdulmutallab before he was read his Miranda rights and refused to answer any further questions, the Obama administration has claimed that it had, during that brief interrogation, gotten all the information that was possible to be gained from Abdulmutallab. On Fox News Sunday January 24, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that "FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him." When host Chris Wallace asked, "All they could?" Gibbs answered, "Yeah."

On January 31, top White House adviser David Axelrod told Meet the Press that Abdulmutallab "has given very valuable information to the government about activities in Yemen and some of his experiences there." To emphasize the point, Axelrod said, "We have not lost anything as a result of how his case has been handled."

So just a few days ago the Obama administration claimed that Abdulmutallab had given up everything he knows. Now, they claim he is giving them fresh, useful intelligence.

The administration's new position seems to be a direct response to bipartisan criticism of the handling of Abdulmutallab. Many lawmakers on Capitol Hill were appalled to learn that he had been questioned for just 50 minutes before being advised of his right to remain silent. The criticism started among Republicans but spread to some Democrats and threatened to spread further unless the administration addressed the issue in some way. So now comes the news that Abdulmutallab is talking again.

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) WINS Porker of the Year!

We can proudly say that we voted for the winner, Barney Frank. It is a well deserved award to Mr. Franks who never saw an earmark or pork he didn't like. Same goes with how he fills up his campaign treasury every year.

Rep. Barney Frank is the 2009 Porker of the Year!
February 2, 2010

The results are in! As announced by Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” this morning, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is the “winner” of CAGW’s online poll for 2009 Porker of the Year. Chairman Frank finished first in a field of six with a whopping 49 percent of the vote, outdistancing his closest “porky” competitor by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

Chairman Frank garnered the lion’s share of the vote as a result of his relentless and garrulous role in the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), which the federal government took into conservatorship in September, 2008 after they began to collapse and which remain on life support after an infusion of $112 billion in taxpayer funds. Among GSE defenders, Chairman Frank is without peer. He safeguarded their lavish franchises and fended off any attempts to establish GSE oversight even when it became clear that GSE executives had manipulated earnings statements, given themselves huge bonuses based on bogus numbers, and steered the companies into such a precarious condition that they threatened the entire financial system. In one of his most outrageous statements, Chairman Frank casually announced during a committee hearing in 2003 that he didn’t want “the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

The other 2009 Porker of the Year nominees, in order of votes received, were: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) (26.3 percent), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) (6.6 percent), Rep. Russ Carnahan (D.-Mo.) (5.9 percent), and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) (5.5 percent). President Barack Obama was the overwhelming favorite in the write-in category with just over 4 percent of the total vote. President Obama even finished ahead of last-place nominee, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who garnered 3 percent of the vote.

Former CIA Officdial Says Axelrod and Gibbs are "Nothing but Buffoons" on National Security Matters

Monday, February 1, 2010
Former CIA Official Says Axelrod and Gibbs are "Nothing but Buffoons" on National Security Matters

Here is video of former CIA operative Wayne Simmons saying that Obama Adviser David Axelrod, along with Robert Gibbs, are nothing but "buffoons when it comes to National Security."

He was reacting to the Administration's decision to not have Intelligence Professionals interrogate Terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Simmons said the Obama Administration is "not making the right decisions" when it comes to our National Security.

Source: Freedoms Lighthouse.com

Obama Failures on National Security and Terrorism

Do you feel safer today from terrorists then you did in 2008? Any person who answers 'yes' to that question is not facing reality.

It should be abundently clear by now that Obama and his Administration do not want to deal with terrorists and prefer to call them 'enemy combatants' as well as trying them in Federal Court instead of by a military tribunal. What is an 'enemy combatant' compared to a terrorist? Nicer name for 'Islamic terrorists' is one answer. Getting more obvious that Obama does not want to admit that the terrorism threat against Americans in this Country is real and increasing.

We would have lost over 300 people on Christmas Day if the bomber had been able to activate his bomb, but would the Obama administration have called it a fuel tank catastrophic event that brought down the plane instead of terrorism? It was an act of terrorism which Obama couldn't hide but the DOJ rushed in to shut down questioning after ONLY 50 minutes and read Farouk Abdulmutallab his Miranda Rights. He was treated like an American citizen who broke criminal laws not as a terrorist who was set on killing over 300 people in an airplane bombing.

There is something wrong with this picture and other events in this Country that make no sense when dealing with obvious terrorist. What are Obama and Attorney General Holder trying to cover up? Is there a connection they don't want uncovered? These kind of questions would not be asked if this Administration was the least bit open and above board.

Trying the mastermind of 9/11 in the United States in Federal Court makes just as little sense and glad to see the new Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, saying to the Obama Administration that they are not having the trials in Virginia.

Why won't Obama connect terror dots? Today's Washington Times Editorial wants to know the answer the same as most Americans.

Monday, February 1, 2010
EDITORIAL: Obama won't connect terror dots
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

When a man is apprehended with a cache of weapons, body armor, a map of a military installation and jihadist personal effects, the natural response of most Americans is to assume the situation is terrorist-related. The Obama administration says otherwise.

Lloyd R. Woodson was arrested Jan. 25 in rural New Jersey. He had been observed behaving strangely, wearing military-style fatigues and a bulletproof vest. He had a weapon modified to fire .50-caliber rounds from beneath his jacket. He had a hotel room full of weapons and ammunition. Despite all these warning signs, the immediate response from the government was that this was "not a terrorism thing."
Bureaucratic lack of concern raises a critical question: If this is not the behavior of a terrorist, what is?

It's not clear what the Obama administration thinks terrorism is, if it thinks it exists at all. The administration doggedly maintains that political, especially jihadist, violence by individuals with no international linkage is not terrorism. This definition might come as a surprise to the Unabomber, who for years was the most sought-after terrorist in America.

President Obama's knee-jerk response that the Christmas Day bombing plot was not terror-related was probably one of the factors that led Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be Mirandized quickly and treated as a criminal suspect. It shouldn't matter that this was a domestic incident; he is a jihadist warrior, and the aircraft was his battlefield.

The same was the case with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with killing 14 persons and wounding 31 in the Fort Hood massacre. America was assured that Maj. Hasan had no foreign terrorist links, and he was not charged with committing an act of terrorism. The Obama administration's report on the shooting, released three weeks ago, avoids mentioning radical Islam as a motivating factor in his rampage. However, both Maj. Hasan and Mr. Abdulmutallab had relationships with Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is a leading member of al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula ...

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times

Will someone explain to us why Obama refuses to acknowledge terrorists exist in this Country. Since he doesn't believe in domestic terrorist, what does he call the people who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed all those people. Even Clinton tabbed McVeigh and Nichols as domestic terrorists.

Why won't Obama use the word 'terrorist' to describe obvious terrorists acts against Americans? Something is wrong, very wrong and we are guessing it has to do with Obama's hidden background. Was it the way he was raised? Was he raised Muslim as he can site their prayer in their dialect with no problem? All questions that deserve answers. The man is a closed book and even his biographies have turned out to be ghost written with some facts that don't exist.

The hearings in the Senate did not go well for the Obama Administration on the Christmas Day bomber as questions were not answered to any one's satisfaction as to why Farouk was read his Miranda Rights 50 minutes after he was captured.

Yesterday Axelrod, White House aide from Chicago stated "We Have Not Lost Anything" by Giving Abdulmutallab Miranda Rights. What? That is a stupid statement to make and with no facts to back him up.

Interrogators were getting further terrorist information out of Farouk but were stopped in their tracks when the DOJ comes running in to Mirandize him. Excuse us, but we believe the information the Intelligence community was getting outweighed anything else. Farouk is a terrorist who tried to bomb a Northwest plane enroute to Detroit and kill over 300 people on board, but he is treated like a common criminal by Obama and his Administration. We ask once again "WHY?"

Axelrod: "We Have Not Lost Anything" by Giving Abdulmutallab Miranda Rights
Another White House official says a 50-minute interrogation of the Christmas Day bomber was good enough.

BY Stephen F. Hayes
January 31, 2010 11:33 AM

Top White House adviser David Axelrod believes the U.S. government properly handled the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, despite the fact that Abdulmutallab stopped talking to interrogators after having had Miranda rights read to him. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Axelrod was asked about the decision to read Abdulmutallab his rights after just 50 minutes of interrogation. "We have not lost anything as a result of how this case has been handled," Axelrod said. It was an updated version of the claim that Robert Gibbs made last week, when he said that FBI interrogators had gotten "all they could get" from Abdulmutallab in their brief session.

If the White House political and spin teams believe this is true, the actions of the FBI officers themselves suggest that the claim is not true. After a five-hour break following the first interrogation session, the FBI sent a second team to interrogate Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day -- something that would have been unnecessary if the FBI had, in fact, gotten everything it could from him.

And on Friday the Washington Post reported that Justice Department officials are still trying to get more from Abdulmutallab. The Post reported that U.S. government officials are now working on a plea bargain with Abdulmutallab's lawyers -- a deal that would allow interrogators access once again to Abdulmutallab. That wouldn't be necessary if we had gotten everything we could have gotten from him.Intelligence collection is an ongoing process.

It doesn't stop after just one interview with a terrorist. The best information often comes after a series of back-and-forth sessions with the subject that last days, even weeks. Interrogators take bits of information provided by the subject and test it against information collected from other sources -- intercepts, human collection, open source material, and other detainees -- to learn more and to fill in the intelligence picture on a particular subject or group or operation.

By allowing Abdulmutallab to remain silent, the Obama administration has chosen -- and it is a choice -- to collect less information and ultimately to know less about the al Qaeda operatives trying to kill Americans.

We have yet another example of this short-sighted approach today. According to the Associated Press, Malaysian authorities detained 10 suspected terrorists who are believed to have ties to Abdulmutallab.

Excerpt: Read More at Weekly Standard

None of us should be shocked at the lack of insight into how Islamic terrorists want to kill us by this Administration after the way they started going after the CIA immediately upon taking office.

We also believe the 9/11 Commission was wrong to suggest all these agencies like the CIA be put under control of Homeland Security. The CIA should have remained a separate entity reporting directly to the White House. The Department of Homeland Security is too large and diverse to be handled effectively. It would be hard when you have qualified people in charge of Homeland Security but the Obama appointee Napolitono doesn't fit the word qualified. When she was the Arizona Governor, she promised a lot on border security but NEVER delivered. That seems to be a qualification for this Administration -- little to no accomplishments.

How the mainstream media can continue to support and spin for the Obama Administration on national security is beyond comprehension. It is right before your eyes that this Administration from Day One and even on the campaign trail refused to acknowledge that Islamic terrorist want to kill Americans. Bad enough that Obama and his appointees don't want to acknowledge terrorists exist in this Country or come from overseas to kill us, but the media has abdicated their role in providing the facts not spin as they continue to cover for Obama on national security. Why do some members of the White House Press Corp continue to allow themselves to be spun by Press Secretary Gibbs?

Obama admnistration takes several wrong paths in dealing with terrorism
By Michael V. Hayden
Sunday, January 31, 2010

In the war on terrorism, this country faces an enemy whose theory of warfare ends the hard-won distinction in modern thought between combatant and noncombatant.


In doing that for which we have created government -- ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- how can we be adequately aggressive to ensure the first value, without unduly threatening the other two? This is hard. And people don't have to be lazy or stupid to get it wrong.

We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not "an isolated extremist." He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland.

In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?

When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts -- "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that" -- helps set up more detailed questioning.

None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn't. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and -- to preserve a potential prosecution -- sent in a "clean team" of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent.

In retrospect, the inadvisability of this approach seems self-evident. Perhaps it didn't appear that way on Dec. 25 because we have, over the past year, become acclimated to certain patterns of thought.

Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document -- there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques -- than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.

A similar drama unfolded in April over the release of Justice Department memos that had authorized the CIA interrogation program. CIA Director Leon Panetta and several of his predecessors opposed public release of the memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on the only legitimate grounds for such a stand: that the documents were legitimately still classified and their release would gravely harm national security. On this policy -- not legal -- question, the president sided with his attorney general rather than his CIA chief.

(snip)

In November, Justice announced that it intended to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others in civilian courts for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House made clear that this was a Justice Department decision, which is odd because the decision was not legally compelled (other detainees are to be tried by military commissions) and the reasons given for making it (military trials could serve as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda, harm relations with allies, etc.) were not legal but political.

Even tough government organizations, such as those in the intelligence community, figure out pretty quickly what their political masters think is not acceptable behavior.

(snip)

Some may celebrate that the current Justice Department's perspective on the war on terrorism has become markedly more dominant in the past year. We should probably understand the implications of that before we break out the champagne. That apparently no one recommended on Christmas Day that Abdulmutallab be handled, at least for a time, as an enemy combatant should be concerning. That our director of national intelligence, Denny Blair, bravely said as much during congressional testimony this month is cause for hope.

Actually, Blair suggested that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), announced by the administration in August, should have been called in. A government spokesman later pointed out that the group does not yet exist.

There's a final oddity. In August, the government unveiled the HIG for questioning al-Qaeda and announced that the FBI would begin questioning CIA officers about the alleged abuses in the 2004 inspector general's report. They are apparently still getting organized for the al-Qaeda interrogations. But the interrogations of CIA personnel are well underway.

The writer was director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Post

What can you say when an Obama appointee briefing the Senate says the HIG should have been called when that group does not exist? The word 'incompetence' for this Administration on national security and terrorism comes to mind.

Wish there was an answer as to why Obama and his Administration do not want to acknowledge Islamic Terrorist want to kill Americans. If we had the answer, the dots could be put together to make sense, but then some people in this Country might have to admit that we have the weakest President ever when it comes to National Security.

Seems Obama would rather intefer with the College football BCS then handle National Security. Frightening!