Obama Shocker: Backs Palestinians - Tells Israel to pull back to 1967 Borders!

What can you say about the Obama speech except to say that his guarantee of security for Israel is bogus when he calls from them to pull back to the 1967 borders.  Obvious from the speech that Obama sides with the Muslims in the Middle East and anyone who doesn't get it by now has a reading comprehension problem. Does he want the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of every square inch of the Middle East?

Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders

Published May 19, 2011

| FoxNews.com

AP May 17: President Obama meets with Jordan's King Abdullah II

 in the Oval Office at the White House.

President Obama, delivering his first major address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East, on Thursday endorsed Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Though the move is likely to aggravate the Israelis, Obama said the United States' commitment to Israeli security is "unshakable." He also rejected attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition for their own state before the United Nations.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel's desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.

In the speech, Obama also offered an ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar Assad, telling him to either support a democratic transition or "get out of the way."

Excerpt:  Read More at Fox News

Does Obama want to kill Right to Work with the NLRB in Violation of Taft Hartley?

Since 1947, states have been allowed to vote for Right to Work but today we only have 22 states who have passed Right to Work. What does that say about the power of unions in the Democrat blue states that a vote doesn't even come up for the people of the state to vote in recent years.  Now the NLRB at the request of Obama is flexing its muscle to say that Boeing is not allowed to move manufacturing to South Carolina a Right to Work state from Washington State, a Union State.  Does that mean the Obama Administration was to violate the Taft Hartley Act of 1947?

State laws permitted by section 14(b) of the Taft Hartley Act of 1947 that provide in general that employees are not required to join a union as a condition of getting or retaining a job.

Right-to-work laws forbid unions and employers to enter into agreements requiring employees to join a union and pay dues and fees to it in order to get or keep a job. Twenty-one states, mostly in the South and West, have right-to-work laws.

Oklahoma became the last Right to Work state on September 25, 2001, after a vote of the people. The right of the people to vote on Right to Work was due to our current Governor Mary Fallin.  As Lt Governor she took over the gavel in the Senate to break the logjam of the Democrats stifling the right of the people to vote. The Democrats had shut off the electricity to the Senate chamber but that didn't stop Mary and others from getting the Right to Work bill passed to put it on a ballot in a special election.

The money and union thugs from out of state poured into our state at an alarming rate. The Clintons were part of the management of the group trying to defeat Right to Work. Over 90% of the donations to the Right to Work side came from within Oklahoma while over 90% of the donations to its defeat came from outside of Oklahoma. The ads on the TV against Right to Work were so full of lies that almost anyone could see through them. The day of the election the out of state thugs were in some areas but not in ours -- our Sheriff at the time would have arrested them on the spot if they did anything outside the law so they stayed away from our County. With all the poll watchers and lawyers ready to come in at a moments notice, we won the battle to make Oklahoma a Right to Work state.

Now the union people here keep putting out that Right to Work didn't bring jobs to Oklahoma. Tell that to the people who have been hired by Boeing with all the jobs they have transferred into Oklahoma to be closer to the depot at Tinker AFB or other companies that have brought jobs to the State. We have airplane hangars that have been built at the Tinker AFB Mall from various companies to repair aircraft right here in Oklahoma instead of in other states.

Is the NLRB going to be at our doorstep next? EPA has a lousy track record against Oklahoma with our Senators so bring on the NLRB to go toe to toe with Senators Inhofe and Coburn. My money is on our two Senators.

Has the fact Oklahoma is a Right to Work state affected campaign donations to Democrats by the unions? Absolutely! The passage of Right to Work in September 2001 along with term limits passed in the early 90's by voters led to the House being taken over by the Republicans in 2004 and for the first time in history Republican control of the Senate in 2010 in spite of ACORN trying to steal two Senate seats. Now Republicans for the first time in history also control all statewide offices as well with the 2010 elections.

The tactics of union leaders is legendary starting with the Longshoreman in NY with support of the Mafia. Now word comes the union thug tactics has struck the town of Costa Mesa in Orange County, CA. Here is the latest on that situation where a union thug leader intercepted emails to find out what the opposition (city council) was doing:

VIDEO: AFL-CIO Leader Admits To ‘Intercepting’ Emails In Dispute With Costa Mesa City Council Bernardino ”GATE”

....

Berardino”GATE” – Enter Nick Berardino, the AFL-CIO’s General Manager of the Orange County Employees Union; the stereotypical “thug” that speaks of his Italian heritage and jokes about showing up at Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh’s home’s when upset with him, “and I don’t want to go there to deliver cannoli and a little bit of wine.” Mr. Berardino it seems, not only likes to joke about these physical taunts but apparently likes to “intercept” other people’s email in an effort to know all the covert moves of his opponents. Also on the video below Art Pulaski, an Officer with the California Labor Federation, says “I have seen the memos from the leaders of Costa Mesa to the leaders of Orange County and beyond.” It appears Nick the thug and Art keep in communication.





Costa Mesa like many municipalities in America are going through difficult fiscal times and hard decisions by elected officials must be made to prevent insolvency. What the citizens of Costa Mesa don’t need, and I dare say, the city workers of Costa Mesa don’t need, is Nick Berardino and Art Pulaski doing things that would make Nixon blush.

When asked about the “intercepted” emails comment made on video, Costa Mesa City Councilman Jim Righeimer said, “Someone gave me a copy of the video and I immediately gave it to the Orange County District Attorney’s office for investigation. People have a right to privacy that we need to ensure is not being violated here.”

My guess is the next move of the Democrat Party/Union (let’s face it they are the same entity now) is to call in THE PLUMBERS. Maybe they should flush Nick Berardino out of the system first.

Excerpt: Read More at TrevorLoudon.com

It gets pretty bad when the unions feel so threatened that they take on a city council with thug tactics. When are more states going to follow the lead of the 22 Right to Work states and give the people a chance to vote on Right to Work?

You cannot argue with the facts:

A recent study by the staff of Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., pointed to some revealing data: Between 1993 and 2009, right-to-work states created jobs twice as fast as states where forced unionism is permitted, and enjoyed 10 percent faster growth in personal income. Right-to-work states account for only 40 percent of the U.S. population but hosted 60 percent of the nation's new businesses during that same period.

Such data contrasts mightily with facts like this: Unions spent $400 million to elect President Obama and Democrats in 2008 largely because of promises to use the federal government to restore labor to its former position of strength. The centerpiece of that effort was card check, which would have abolished secret ballots in workplace representation elections, but it failed in Congress.

So now the Obama campaign to rescue dying unions is focused on the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB, which is run by Obama appointees, has filed a complaint against Boeing Aircraft Co. for expanding its manufacturing operations into DeMint's right-to-work state. Obama is only trying to help his union campaign donors -- as usual -- but this effort is bound to backfire. Right-to-work states are demonstrating daily that workers, their families and taxpayers all benefit when employees have the freedom to choose whether to join a union. There are 22 such states now and odds are more are coming, which will be good economic news for them -- and the country.

Excerpt: Read More at the Washington Examiner

The following information made me chuckle when you learn that the Obama Export Council Chair is none other than the CEO and President of Boeing Corporation, Jim McNerney. How fitting that the Obama Administration is going after the company that their Export Council Chair is the head. Talk about being tone-deaf -- that is Obama and his Administration as they do the bidding of the labor unions.

NLRB takes another Boeing hit as Obama’s Export Council chair criticizes labor board’s plans

President Barack Obama remains silent on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) actions against the Boeing Company’s recently-finished $2 billion production plant in South Carolina, but his Export Council chairman Jim McNerney, who’s also the president and CEO of Boeing, ripped the NLRB in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday morning.

“The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority,” McNerney wrote. “Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America’s competitiveness since it became the world’s largest economy nearly 140 years ago. We’ve made a rational, legal business decision about the allocation of our capital and the placement of new work within the U.S. We’re confident the federal courts will reject the claim, but only after a significant and unnecessary expense to taxpayers.”

Excerpt: Read More at The Daily Caller

Anyone want to bet that the management of Boeing will not be in line to give political donations to Obama and Democrats this time around? Looks like Obama and his union thugs put the unions ahead of Federal Law once again as Obama bends over backwards to court the unions for campaign donations as his latest fundraisers have not gone well.

Stay tuned for more updates as Boeing and Senate Republicans take on the NLRB.

Labor panel wants union officials in corporate boardrooms

The last paragraph from the Washington Examiner says it all about what is happening. If this latest power grab by the NLRB on the behalf of the unions doesn't sound communist, nothing does:

Soviet Communist Party theoretician Leon Trotsky wrote this in 1931: "The workers need control not for platonic purposes, but in order to exert practical influence upon the production and commercial operations of the employers. ... In a developed form, workers' control thus implies a sort of economic dual power in the factory." Were Trotsky still around, he would no doubt cheer Obama's NLRB.

Unions in many states like Michigan and Ohio have driven jobs to other states and countries with their unreasonable demands and strikes. Grew up with factories striking in the Dayton area for little or no reason. Don't know how many times the unions would decide to strike near the beginning of hunting season over the smallest items or while retooling for the new model year, they would lay off people and senior people took the layoffs to go hunting in the fall of the year. Not sure my Uncle ever worked through the start of hunting season.

What I thought the strangest was he worked for GM and could have bought a GM vehicle at a discount but he always bought Fords. When I asked him why, he said he wouldn't want to buy anything the people around him were making. That was an indictment on the GM union workers in Dayton. In fact Dayton union workers also drove out Frigidaire, NCR, and who knows what other companies. Most unreliable group of union people who would walk out over any dispute.

Now that same mentality wants to run business. As union workers, they have done a good job of running business into the ground and now they want to tell business where to locate and how to run themselves? Is this Department of Labor and the NLRB crazy? We think it is and why the sooner they are all out of jobs the better. America cannot afford four more years of what we have been seeing.

We have noted that most of the Right to Work states are Red States. Oklahoma was added to the rolls in the early part of this century with an overwhelming vote to become a Right to Work state against a ton of money from outside the state plus union thugs. Was a poll watcher to make sure that the election was legitimate as trucks with union workers were going from poll to poll but never saw anything here.

As you can see on the current map of Right to Work states that most are in the south and middle America:

Labor panel wants union officials in corporate boardrooms
By: Examiner Editorial 05/17/11 8:05 PM

The National Labor Relations Board sued Boeing for opening a factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. 

Why has private-sector unionization fallen from 35 percent of the work force during World War II to less than 7 percent today? The main reason is that unions raise a firm's labor costs, leaving fewer resources for things like job creation, capital improvements, and research and development. Unions also make it much harder for owners and executives to make practical business decisions. 

A memo leaked from the National Labor Relations Board makes clear that President Obama and the radical labor advocates he put on it are embarked on a calculated campaign to make unionized firms even harder to manage. The NLRB's recent suit against Boeing Aircraft Co. is merely the first step. 

The board sued Boeing for opening a factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Boeing's main plant is in Washington, a state where employees have no choice but to join unions. It's also where the International Association of Machinists has struck Boeing five times in 30 years, most recently in 2008. That strike cost Boeing $2 billion and prompted longtime customers like Virgin Airways chief Richard Branson to make plans to take his business elsewhere. With the new plant, 1,000 jobs were created in South Carolina, but no union jobs in Washington were lost. 

Obama's NLRB doesn't give a hoot what the Supreme Court ruled. Not only is the NLRB standing firm in its Boeing suit, but the leaked memo, which was obtained by the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk, also shows that the board seeks to elevate union officials to equal partners with executives in corporate boardrooms of all unionized firms.

The memo instructs NLRB regional operatives to flag all cases in which unionized firms made relocation decisions without submitting detailed economic justifications to their unions. The board plans "case-by-case" reviews, followed by prosecutions of selected cases. The intended consequence is that all major business decisions will become subject to approval by unions.

....

Read more at the Washington Examiner

While researching to do this article, we ran across the latest on the NLRB action against Boeing as a Freedom of Information request has now been filed:

FOIA Request Filed to Disclose Political Motives Behind NLRB’s Attack on Boeing 

May 16th 2011 

Washington, DC May 16, 2011 – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act FOIA disclosure request with the National Labor Relations Board NLRB on the heels of the agency’s recent announcement that it will prosecute airline manufacturer Boeing Corp. 

If International Association of Machinists IAM union officials and the NLRB are successful, over 1,000 Boeing employees in South Carolina would be out of work as Boeing will be forced to relocate the aircraft assembly jobs to Washington State which lacks Right to Work protections for employees.

The NLRB’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, issued the complaint against Boeing late last month at the behest of IAM union bosses. In 2009, Boeing opened the new plant to produce 787 Dreamliner airplanes in South Carolina, largely because South Carolina is a Right to Work state that protects workers from being required to join or pay dues to a union just to get or keep a job. 

Foundation President Mark Mix submitted the FOIA inquiry on Monday.
In the request, Mix asks that the agency produce all the documentation regarding communications between NLRB officials and third parties, including communications with Obama administration officials; officials from the offices of the Governors of Washington and Oregon; and any other federal, state, or local government agency personnel regarding Boeing or the IAM union, the opening of the company’s facility in South Carolina, and about the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing itself. 

Source:  LaborUnionReport.com

We want to know why a company doesn't have a right to put their factory wherever they want in the United States without the NLRB becoming involved.  Boeing has a history of problems with their unions in Seattle so if you want to blame anyone for Boeing building a plant in South Carolina, lay it at the feet of the Union Members and their bosses who think nothing of striking Boeing.  The NLRB and Unions are showing their true colors now with Obama in the White House.  Union membership has fallen drastically and if the occupant of the White House thinks this thuggish action is a way to get more members, think again.

All we have seen out of unions in recent years led by SEIU is thuggish activity toward anyone who doesn't agree with them along with voter fraud.  They will attack people and property as we recently witnessed in Wisconsin and don't think anything of the cost to the taxpayers of Wisconsin for their actions:

Protests at the state Capitol over public workers' collective bargaining powers cost more than $7.8 million for police, and damage to the Capitol will cost about $270,000 to repair, a state official said.

Now the taxpayers of Wisconsin have a $7.8M bill for the union protests including repairs to the Capitol.  Typical example of union members from the SEIU.  It is shocking to watch the SEIU public service union operate at the state and local level.  Having been around the Air Force Materiel Command most of my adult life, I find it strange that the state and local unions even have bargaining rights and can strike.  Check out the federal unions and you discover they are not allowed to strike.  We saw President Reagan fire the air traffic controllers when they went on strike.  In Air Force Materiel Command we saw the Commander tell the union at Tinker if you strike, you are fired.  The only reason I can think of for federal unions is for donations to the Democrat political machine as there are grievance procedures in the Federal Government.

If I had one thing to say to states whose economies have been put on their backs because of companies leaving due to union problems, pass Right to Work!

Flashback: Governor Rick Perry of Texas at 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference

If you are a Republican and this speech by Governor Perry doesn't get you pumped up, then something is wrong. This is the Governor we need to run for President to take on Obama like he has been doing for last few years.

Rick Perry Presidential Push Quietly Gains Steam

We will let the article speak for itself but we cannot think of a better candidate to run for President of the United States than Governor Rick Perry of Texas.  He checks all the blocks I have when supporting someone for President.  He has a backbone and not afraid to stand up to Obama and this Administration as the Country has been witnessing.  He understands State's Rights and would do a great job of returning State's Rights to the States as President.  


We sincerely hope that Governor Rick Perry will throw his hat in the race -- he can count on this Sooner and others from the Sooner State supporting him 100%.  After all the Aggies and the Sooners are both share the color 'red' not orange. 


Governor Perry will be headlining the Southern Republican Leadership Conference again and if his speech is anything like last year, it will get more standing ovations and a chance for him to showcase what it would be like for him to be in the Presidential race.  


May 17, 2011

Rick Perry Presidential Push Quietly Gains Steam

By Erin McPike and Scott Conroy

As many grass-roots Republicans remain in search of a conservative candidate with the pizazz to go toe-to-toe against President Obama, a man from deep in the heart of Texas who was tea party before the tea party was cool appears to be giving the presidential race some thought.

Gov. Rick Perry has insisted on multiple occasions that he has no interest in the presidency, but RCP has learned that political associates have begun to nose around quietly on Perry's behalf.

A Texas pol who is close to Perry has been telling a few key strategists that the nation's longest-serving governor sees a vacuum and is waiting to be summoned into the race. This source believes that could happen by late summer. Without fellow Southerners Haley Barbour or Mike Huckabee in the race -- and with Newt Gingrich's early troubles raising further doubts about the current lineup -- there could be a glaring niche for Perry to fill.

According to another well-connected Republican, at least one Perry confidant has been very quietly making inquiries about the political terrain in the nation's first voting state of Iowa. A third Perry associate, RCP has learned, has been heralding a small contingent of Iowans with the time-tested line that is often used by would-be candidates who are leaving their options open: "Keep your powder dry."

Perry's aides have long made it clear that the tough-talking Texan, who succeeded George W. Bush in Austin in 2000, would not seriously entertain the idea of mounting a White House run before the state's legislative session finishes at the end of this month. That date is now less than two weeks away, and the 2012 presidential field remains fluid.

The Perry chatter has been so discreet that nearly a dozen early-state GOP operatives and consultants contacted by RCP hadn't heard a word about it. But they are unfazed that the buzz exists.

Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist and Bush administration veteran, said, "I'm not aware of Perry making calls, although it wouldn't surprise me."

Perry would hardly be the first prominent Republican to raise presidential expectations, however unobtrusively, only to later back away -- and his associates remain adamant, in public at least, that nothing has changed.

"The Governor has not called anyone about running for POTUS. I'd like to know of one person who says they received such a call," Dave Carney, a Perry political strategist who now works for Gingrich's presidential effort, said in an email. "He is calling raising funds for the Republican Governors Association, of which he currently serves as chair."

Excerpt:  Read More at Real Clear Politics

Bullet Train between LA and SF turning into a train-wreck

This says it all:

The state's plan to build a bullet train has become a monument to the ways poor planning, mismanagement and political interference can screw up major public works.

Those words can be echoed across the Country in cities and towns where public works projects get messed up with political interference.  That is how we got the road to nowhere in South Texas and other places.  The interchange was built with no place to go.  Give a politician money to spend on infrastructure and watch it get messed up by their political appointments to run the project.

Seeing it my own small city with the underpass for the railroad tracks.  They let the contractor try to reuse a bridge but it wouldn't fit and had other problems so now the project is behind schedule which drives up costs but nothing on the scale of the bullet train.

With the strings attached by the Federal Government, this project is doomed to failure.  With having to break ground in 2012 in time for Obama's reelection campaign, the timetable is all off and dooms the project thanks to Obama and his desire for publicity about high speed rail.

We could actually see it working from LA to SF if they didn't make so many stops.  We have a suggestion -- put the monorail engineers of Disney on the project!  The rendition drawing even looks somewhat like the Contemporary Hotel station at Disney World for the monorail.

The idea to have high speed rail in the middle of the country is a non-starter and way too expensive.  It is meant for travel in places like from LA to SF and NYC to DC.  That is where you would attract the passengers to pay for the costs.

California's high-speed train wreck 

The state's plan to build a bullet train has become a monument to the ways poor planning, mismanagement and political interference can screw up major public works. We can do better.

An artist's rendering of the proposed San Jose stop on the $43-billion high-speed rail line. (California High-Speed Rail Authority / Bloomberg)  California's much-vaunted high-speed rail project is, to put it bluntly, a train wreck. Intended to demonstrate the state's commitment to sustainable, cutting-edge transportation systems, and to show that the U.S. can build rail networks as sophisticated as those in Europe and Asia, it is instead a monument to the ways poor planning, mismanagement and political interference can screw up major public works. For anti-government conservatives, it is also a powerful argument for scrapping President Obama's national rail plans, rescinding federal funding and canceling the project before any more money is wasted on it. We couldn't disagree more. We pointed out back in 2008, before voters approved nearly $10 billion in state bonds to fund the project under Proposition 1A, that it would be more expensive and difficult to build than its backers were letting on. But we endorsed it anyway because of the economic and environmental benefits the train could bring. The benefits still outweigh the costs, and none of the $43-billion project's troubles are insurmountable. Fortunately, a report last week from the state Legislative Analyst's Office offers strong recommendations for getting the system back on track. The train's biggest problems can be laid at the feet of the High Speed Rail Authority, which is overseeing its construction. Inexperienced board members appointed by the governor and Legislature on the basis of political patronage rather than expertise have made a host of poor decisions. Not the least boneheaded of these is the board's plan to take a circuitous route from Los Angeles to Bakersfield by veering through Palmdale and Lancaster. Compared with the more direct route along Interstate 5 through the Grapevine, this would add 30 miles to the trip plus $1 billion in construction costs, and make it all but impossible for the train to meet its promised travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from L.A. to San Francisco. The legislative analyst calls for slashing the authority's proposed budget for next year by $185 million and eventually eliminating it, transferring the bullet train's oversight to another agency. We heartily agree. Not all of the bad decisions can be blamed on the rail authority. To qualify for federal funds, planners had to agree to break ground by 2012. With political battles raging throughout the state over routing decisions, federal officials deemed that the only segment that would be ready for construction so quickly was in the sparsely populated Central Valley. As a result, the bulk of the $3.5 billion kicked in by the Obama administration must be spent on a train running between the tiny towns of Borden and Corcoran. Ridership on this initial segment would be slight, making it impossible to operate the train without taxpayer subsidies. Yet under the terms of Proposition 1A, the state can't issue bonds to pay for the project unless it has been demonstrated to be self-sufficient. What's more, if federal and other funds for further construction dry up, California could end up with an expensive train to nowhere. Excerpt:  Read More at LA Times Editorial

GOP Rep. Ryan swipes at Gingrich: 'With allies like that, who needs the left?'

Cong Paul Ryan is 100% correct about Gingrich! From the day he traveled with Hillary for Healthcare to when he decided Pelosi was right about Global Warming he has been sinking lower and lower. He wasn't very high to begin with on my radar after his despicable performance during Monicagate. Glad to see Paul Ryan go after him. Don't know who Gingrich is hoping to get on his side but it is sure not most Republicans.

Gingrich is near the bottom of anyone we could fully support for President because like others he is too thin skinned if you remember his whine when he had to exit the back of Air Force One after attending a funeral with Clinton. Anyone whoever ran around with Hillary and Pelosi is a non-starter for most of us.

GOP Rep. Ryan swipes at Gingrich: 'With allies like that, who needs the left?'
By Michael O'Brien - 05/16/11 10:45 AM ET

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) took a swipe Monday at Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich after the former House Speaker criticized hiss proposed Medicare reforms.

"With allies like that, who needs the left?" Ryan told guest host Raymond Arroyo on conservative talker Laura Ingraham's radio show.

Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, defended his 2012 budget proposal that includes significant reforms to Medicare.

Gingrich on Sunday distanced himself from Ryan's plan, which would transform the program into a voucher-based system for Americans under the age of 55.

"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said of Ryan's plan on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

Ryan strongly disputed Gingrich's description of his plan, which House Republicans approved last month.

"Hardly is that social engineering and radical," he said. "What's radical is kicking the can down the road."

Ryan, who's considering running for the Senate in Wisconsin, refused to say that Gingrich's criticism should disqualify him for the GOP presidential nomination.

"I'm not going to get into any of that," he said.

Source: The Hill

Did a Pakistani official sell info to CIA to settle in the West?

The info about how the CIA received their information in August 2010 now has another source.  Once again it is pointed out that the CIA had this house under surveillance for months.  We find it interesting that the reporter goes into detail about the person who sold the information.  Not surprised at all as this would go along with some of what has been rumored that someone in the Pakistani government tipped them off.

Now fully convinced that Obama did dither for months not days and with the raid being stopped on Saturday night 'due to weather' which wasn't a factor, we believe that the CIA Director ordered the raid to commence while Obama was on the golf course since Obama was brought back from playing golf as witnessed by his golf gear.  CIA Director Panetta and others were making sure that Obama couldn't stop this raid.  We would be willing to bet that the CIA was part of the raid -- just makes sense.

We also believe the part if the raid failed, Jarrett demanded that Panetta take the blame but as we know the raid was a success so the dithering Obama claimed full credit for the operation when he was an unwilling participant.  Did the people in the White House actually believe with all their change of stories that the real truth was not going to start to come out.  It just took a freelance member of the foreign press to put together the details because most of the DC media is too busy propping up Obama to be bothered.

Obama and his people couldn't even keep their mouths shut 24 hours before going against what they promised Gates to keep the details of the raid SECRET.  They seem to care less they have outed the SEAL Team and how they operate as they want Obama to receive the full credit.  It is not working and this is one more story showing Obama dithering to add to the rest.

Did a Pakistani official sell info to CIA to settle in the West?

Wajid Ali Syed

Saturday, May 14, 2011 

WASHINGTON: Did a Pakistani intelligence official sell the information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden to the US last year to get millions of dollars and relocate to a western country with a new non-Pakistani passport? All those seeking to know the full facts of the Osama episode are looking for an answer to this question. 

President Barack Obama would not have agreed to go forward with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden had it not been for intense pressure from CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, administration sources have revealed.
The advocates of the mission had “reached a boiling point”, because President Obama, hesitated for months and kept delaying the final approval. This delay was because of a close aide who suggested that this could damage him politically.
According to these sources, Administration officials were frustrated with the president’s indecisiveness and his orders not to carry out the mission in February. President Obama was “dragged kicking and screaming” to give the green light for the operation in the last week of April. By then, the US military and other high-level officials were so determined to launch the operation that they did not want to give the president the opportunity to delay or to call it off. 

President Obama reluctantly approved to go forward with the operation only if the CIA head agreed to take all the blame in case the mission failed. The planning for the operation underscores the deep divisions in the Obama administration, with President Obama and a close aide, Valerie Jarrett, procrastinating on making a decision and high-ranking officials and members of the cabinet pressing him to go ahead on the other. The chief architect of the plan to “take bin Laden out” was CIA Director Leon Panetta. 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, US Commander in Afghanistan General David Petraeus and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were part of the group that supported Panetta. 

When asked to comment, the White House referred the question to the National Security Council. The NSC said the Department of Defence was fielding such inquiries. The Defence Department’s press office contact Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Robbins responded with this comment: “The Department of Defense is not giving out any further operational details of the mission.” 

However, according to an informed official, the story that a courier helped track bin Laden is just a cover. The CIA actually learned of bin Laden’s whereabouts in August of 2010, when an informant associated with Pakistani intelligence walked into a US Embassy and claimed that bin Laden was living in a house in Abbottabad. The official, however, would not disclose whether the Embassy was located in Pakistan or Afghanistan. 

After confirming that the information was somewhat accurate, the CIA set up a safe house in Abbottabad in September last year to monitor bin Laden’s compound. 

As the intelligence collection proceeded, the CIA demanded that Pakistan come clean with what they knew about bin Laden, claims the official. In December of 2010, the CIA station chief’s identity was made public in the Pakistani press. The intelligence official says that the station chief’s cover was blown to retaliate against the CIA for pressing Pakistani intelligence for information about bin Laden. At the time, the speculation was that the move was in response to a civil suit accusing ISI officials of being involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Once it was clear that the information from the walk-in source was accurate, Panetta set up a reporting chain from the CIA’s Pakistan station direct to him, a highly unusual move that involved bypassing the normal official channels. 

Again the US president was not informed of this progress. Meanwhile, the intelligence operatives learned that key people from an Islamic country friendly to Pakistan were sending Pakistan money to keep Osama out of sight and under virtual house arrest, claims the official. 

By January of 2011 there was a high degree of certainty that bin Laden was in the house. In early February, Panetta suggested that the US should move on bin Laden. But Gates and Petraeus were determined to avoid the “boots on the ground” strategy at all costs. CIA chief Panetta was in favour of an invasion. But President Obama balked on the advice of Valerie Jarrett, a close aide. 

The source maintains that Jarrett’s objection to the proposal was based on the worry that the mission could fail, further eroding Obama’s approval ratings and the strong likelihood that it would be interpreted as yet another act of aggression against the Muslims. The source explained that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a crucial role to pressure President Obama to take action. In the last week of April, she met with White House Chief of Staff William Daley to request a meeting with the president to secure approval for the mission. Within hours, Daley called to say that Valerie Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. 

However, Clinton made sure that the vice president was made aware of the situation. The president was later approached by Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta and pressurised to order the mission. 

Panetta was directing the operation with both his CIA operatives and the military. The plan was not to capture but to kill bin Laden on sight. Contrary to the news reports, it was Panetta and not President Obama who took the lead on coordinating the details of the mission. 

According to the source, the White House staff has compromised the identity of the unit that carried out the mission. The source said the claim that the raid yielded a “treasure trove” of information about al-Qaeda is also exaggerated. Obama meanwhile is “milking” the mission as a tactic to better his chances of re-election in 2012. The concern in intelligence circles is that in his zeal to boost his approval ratings, the president is harming relations with Pakistan. 

The writer is currently a freelance journalist based in Washington who has worked for foreign and Pakistani newspapers and TV channels. 

Source:  The News.com

We thought with the short time on the ground that the "treasure trove" of information about Al Qaeda was overblown by this White House.  They have spun so much they probably don't know how to separate fiction from fact by now as they use everything for Obama's reelection campaign.  Truth has taken a real hit with all the spin from the White House staff.  For sometime a lot of us have not thought that Bin Laden was  more of the figurehead for Al Qaeda with the day to day leadership in someone else's hands and probably why there is no vacuum in leadership of Al Qaeda with Bin Laden dead.  As a non-betting person, would be willing to bet that Bin Laden was not in full control of Al Qaeda when President Bush made the statement after years in office that it didn't make much difference if we got him or not.  Unlike Obama, President Bush listened to his CIA Director.

Senate Democrats MIA Budget for FY2012

The Senate Democrats are already six weeks behind when the budget is required by statute. Is this going to be another year where there is not a budget agreement until we are in 2012? The House budget is passed so why is it taking the Democrats so long to put their budget in place so it can be voted on and then go to conference committee? The Republican House has met the deadline for a budget but the Senate Democrats are dithering just like their leader by promising a budget and then not producing one.

Under the Obama Democrats in the Senate, their actual duties have faded away with more time being spent on power grabbing by the federal government as well as hiring more government employees at an amazing rate.

Are so many Senate Democrats retiring because they don't want to answer to the American people in 2012 on what took them so long to do their duty of writing a budget. The head of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D-ND), is one of those who is going to retire but he still won't put a budget forward. What is in the Democrat budget they are afraid for Americans to see? Did Conrad really give into Bernie Sanders of VT to take the budget left by adding more money for favorite projects? Do no Democrats in the Senate have a backbone?

Democrats: Where Is Your Budget?
May 14, 2011 Posted by John at 8:41 PM

The inability of the Democratic Party to come up with a budget that it can even propose to the American people is the biggest news story of the day. It would be nice if somebody decided to cover it. Yesterday, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee commented on the Democrats' paralysis:

With the statutory committee deadline having been missed by six weeks, and with 744 days gone by since the Democrat-led Senate passed a budget, it was reported that this week Senate Democrats would finally produce a budget and hold a markup. But no budget was produced and the markup was delayed yet again. ... [Ranking member Jeff] Sessions summarized the "big problem" facing Democrat leaders during a joint interview with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan on Greta Van Susteren: "they cannot bring forth a budget their members support that the American people will support, and they understand that, they know that, and they've got a big problem." ...

Reports surfaced this week that Senate Democrats' long-awaited budget plan had not been scheduled for committee action, or shared outside of closed-door meetings with the Democrat caucus, because Chairman Conrad lacked the votes to move the budget out of his committee - particularly, it appeared, the vote of Senator Bernie Sanders. The Hill reported that Senator Conrad shifted the Senate Democrat budget further to the left as a result, coupling every dollar of savings with a dollar in higher taxes - even as the President asserted his so-called framework would achieve three dollars in savings for every one dollar in cuts, albeit a claim that is not borne out by the numbers. ...

Following these revelations, [Congressional Quarterly] published a report indicating that the Senate Democrat Budget had even fewer savings than advertised - cutting only $1.5 trillion over the course of 10 years.

Every intelligent American knows that the federal government is facing a budget crisis that threatens our country's future, yet the Democrats apparently are incapable of coming up with a plan to dig out of the hole their profligate spending has created. What could be clearer evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism?

Source: Powerline

The term 'intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism' describes today's Democrats led by Obama as they have tried to take this Country toward the left and socialism. They have been very successful at putting mandates on the states and spending the United States into a huge deficit that Republicans are trying to cut so our children and grandchildren will not be saddled by the debt. Democrats who claim to care about the 'little people' could care less about getting the Government spending under control which would help everyone.

Senator Inhofe: Democrats have no plans to bring down rising gas prices