Can a "Waterloo" Reckoning Save America?

By John W. Lillpop

Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina's only genuine Republican now serving in the most deliberative body on the planet, has correctly identified Obamacare as a $1.6 trillion fairy tale (with a bad ending) that would replace the best heath care system in the world with inferior HMO rationing coverage for most Americans.

DeMint is right again in hoping that this outrageous assault on the health care choices and future prosperity of the American people are widely recognized for being a socialist nightmare, AND for hoping that Obamacare is defeated in its tracks.

Note, too, that President Obama has resorted to using "scare tactics" to drum up support for a plan that he admits he is not familiar with! How immature is that?

DeMint is also right on the money in declaring that, if defeated, Obamacare may be a "waterloo" moment that will stop Obama man from inflicting even further harm with foolish and costly actions involving climate change and amensty for invading criminals from Mexico.

After all, in just six months, this administration has broken all records in accumulating trillions of dollars of federal deficit, with one report indicating that a worse-case-scenario could result in a $23 TRILLION deficit as a result of Obama's out of control spending on Marxist causes.

Thank goodness, DeMint's "waterloo" remark has caught the president's attention and that of dim wits on the left who support bankrupting America in order to install socialism.

Which means that DeMint has hit a very sensitive nerve and should continue to attack with every weapon in his arsenal, until Obamacare is declared dead and arrangements have been made for a respectful means to dispose of the remains.

To date, Barack Obama has been the "emperor without clothes" whom the mainstream media and equally naked Democrats have protected.

Bravo to Senator Jim DeMint for having the courage to tell it like it is!

Troop "surge" in Obama's Afghan War: Whither Anti-war Freaks?

By John W. Lillpop

President Obama is slip-sliding further into the quagmire that is Afghanistan by sending an additional 22,000 troops into harms way.

The Obama "surge" was reported, in part, at Google.com:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jcla0ZoFykwTGo9rfk8399BRPKtw

"WASHINGTON — The US Army is to boost its ranks temporarily by up to 22,000 troops to ease the strain of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Monday.

"Much has changed over the last two years, causing us to reassess whether we are properly sized to support current operational needs," Gates said, adding that the army would swell to 569,000 soldiers, up from the current 547,000.

"The persistent pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last several years has steadily increased the number of troops not available for deployment in the army."

"The military, with President Barack Obama's "strong support," decided that continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as political turmoil in Pakistan, meant its ability to fill troop vacancies was "at risk," Gates said.

"According to current deployment estimates, he added, the challenge was a "temporary" one that would peak in the coming year and abate over the next three years.

"Obama has ramped up the US effort in Afghanistan, dispatching 21,000 more troops to fight a mounting Taliban-led insurgency just as the United States draws down in Iraq as part of a bilateral agreement signed last year."

Missing from the account was any expert military analysis by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning the president and the American people that the war is "lost."

Perhaps Senator Reid is too busy working on Obama's health care reform, amnesty for illegal aliens, and climate change fiascoes to be bothered with the lives of 22,000 young Americans whom Obama is sending into harms way?

Still, Senator Reid, why not demand a timeline for withdrawal of all troops from that hostile part of the world?

Silence is also deafening from the US House side of the Congress where Shrieker Nancy Pelosi is too busy trying to put the CIA out of business to get her wrinkled old hands sullied with worry over those 22,000 kids, most of whom are probably red-neck Republicans anyway.

Still, Speaker Pelosi, why not demand that Obama announce a definitive plan to bring the troops home by Labor Day or face a cutoff of funding? Leave them stranded in the mountains of Afghanistan!

As the old axiom goes, war is hell. But not nearly as much as the partisan politics played by anti-war freaks running the US Congress.

In Currency Lingo, What Comes After Trillion?

By John W. Lillpop

Seems like just yesterday that conservative and other right-thinking Americans considered one billion dollars an enormous amount of money. Spending that amount on anything except national defense was cause for high alarm and red flags from coast to coast.

That was then, this is now.

The reality now is that America has turned the keys to the US Treasury over to an inexperienced community organizer and bull headed socialist who has no compunctions whatsoever about using taxpayer money to fund his radical agenda.

Even more tragic, American voters have given copies of the Treasury key to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who, as congressional leaders are supposed to provide an oversight function to check the Executive branch, but whom, in reality, are just as reckless and irresponsible with taxpayer money as is President Obama.

With liberals in charge of America's money, the predictable result is chaos and ruin.

As reported, in part, at Politico.com, a worse case scenario could ultimately cost the good people of American $23 TRILLION dollars:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

" A series of bailouts, bank rescues, and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.

"If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history.

"For the government to be on the hook for the total amount, worst-case scenarios would have to come to pass in a variety of federal programs, which is unlikely, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s financial bailout programs, in testimony prepared for delivery to the House oversight committee Tuesday.

"In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.

"Even the Moon landings and the didn’t come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that staggering amount of debt, or anything even close, facing the nation in the midst of a brutal recession, one would expect a reasonably intelligent, highly-educated president to put his liberal agenda on hold until the nation has had a chance to catch it's collective breath and think through all of the options.

Instead, Barack Obama continues to push radical health care reform, amnesty for illegal aliens, and radical climate change legislation, all of which will cost trillions of dollars that this nation simply does not have.

What will it take to get President Obama to step back and apply some common sense to America's financial challenges?

Unless that question is answered soon, we may soon be asking: What comes after trillion?

CIA Had Plans to Do WHAT to Al-Qaeda Leaders?

By John W. Lillpop

President George W. Bush was not my favorite president, mostly because of his mind-numbing policies on illegal aliens and his failure to stop out of control spending.

However, no one can accuse W. of shortchanging the American people when it came to fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to keep the streets of Atlanta and Los Angeles safe.

Safe, except, of course, for the millions of invading criminals from Mexico whom marched to demand amnesty and all of the perks that accrue to citizens. This, we were reminded in Spanish, was their "right" for risking their very lives and limbs in the hot, lonely desert to invade our sovereign land.

Which is about as logical as a captured bank robber demanding that all charges against him be dropped and that his freedom be restored immediately because of the significant risk involved in staging an armed robbery.

Aside from W.'s border myopia, the president was diligent in defending America against another terrorist attack,

That diligence paid off because Bush's policies kept America safe for seven plus years after the agonizing events of 9/11, a fact that liberals like to ignore when trashing the former president.

Note, please, that liberals become particularly venomous in their attacks on W. following further evidence indicating that the only jobs created by Obamanomics are in unemployment offices, food stamp centers, and welfare distribution sites.

For example, when the news recently included evidence that the economy was not in recovery and that the federal deficit, caused by liberal spending, was unsustainable, Team Obama dragged out the CIA canard to distract the public from the bread and butter issues of the day.

As reported, in part, at the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124752710888335275.html


"WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative axed by Director Leon Panetta examined how to assassinate members of al Qaeda with hit teams on the ground, according to current and former national-security officials familiar with the matter

"The goal was to assemble teams of CIA and special-operations forces "and put bullets in [the al Qaeda leaders'] heads," one former intelligence official said."

===

Killing Al-Qaeda leaders was actually an initiative fostered within the CIA?

Oh, My Goodness, our government was being proactive in protecting the interest of Americans against the thugs who killed 3,000 of us on September 11!

Hurrah, and hurrah again, to W. and the CIA for targeting the outlaws whom started the war on terror!

But, hold on a minute.

W. is gone and we now have a community organizer-appeaser in the Oval Office. A fellow who is so naive as to believe that a silver-tongued black man, like himself, can talk the evil right out of those terrorist thugs!

With Obamamania at the ready, we no longer need shock and awe military campaigns. Kinder and gentler is the MO these days.

The referenced article continues:

"The plan was never carried out, and Mr. Panetta canceled the effort on the day he learned of it, June 23. The next day, he alerted Congress, which didn't know about the plan


"The agency hasn't discussed publicly the nature of the effort, which remains classified," said agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday the effort stemmed from a presidential order dated September 2001 that directed the CIA to find ways to kill or capture al Qaeda leaders.

"The revelation has intensified a growing battle between the executive branch and Congress over the conduct of the CIA and U.S. intelligence operations.

"Democrats in Congress are calling for an investigation into whether or not it was properly briefed on the matter."

==

Why waste time and money to investigate the CIA? Boneheads like Nancy Pelosi will simply lie or deny, or both.

Still, from the perspective of Democrats, besmirching the image of the CIA provides a terrific cover for the complete failure of Obamanomics, AND for Nancy Pelosi's stuttering and stammering about her briefing on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, including waterboarding.

Liberals are counting on headlines that scream, "CIA Plans to Murder Foreign Leaders Exposed!"

President Obama will then announce that his administration "inherited" an evil, unconstitutional practice more suitable for a gang of Chicago mobsters than a respected and professional department of the United States government.

Obama will also announce that the CIA has been reorganized under Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security and that transparency, not secrecy, is the new gold standard for our intelligence communities.

Finally, the president will formally apologize to all Al-Qaeda terrorists who might have been targeted by the CIA. And although the CIA did not actually kill any terrorists, Obama will announce a program of reparations to compensate Al-Qaeda family members for any stress caused by the CIA.

That dilly will cost the government $1 trillion dollars, which will paid for by a new federal 25 percent surtax on bullets and handguns!

Which leads to the following urgent question that should be asked of Barack Obama:

Mr. President, when will you acknowledge that your administration "inherited" a system of defense and security that kept this nation safe for seven plus years, and when will you stop destroying that proven defense?

America Needs Tougher Death Penalty Laws, Not More Gun Control

By John W. Lillpop


In 1993, Adrian J. Gilliam Jr., 33, of LaVergne, Tennessee, was convicted in Florida for murder and attempted-armed robbery. Unfortunately, Gilliam was not put to death for his crime, for whatever reason.

Consequently, convicted murderer Gilliam was around to sell the weapon to the woman who murdered NFL legend Steve McNair,

As reported, in part, at Yahoonews:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-mcnair-gunarrest&prov=ap&type=lgns

"NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP)—Federal prosecutors announced gun charges Friday against a convicted murderer who admitted he sold the pistol that was used to kill ex-NFL quarterback Steve McNair.

"Adrian J. Gilliam Jr., 33, of LaVergne, Tenn., was arrested by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

"He is charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Conviction could bring a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, federal prosecutors said.

"A criminal complaint says that Gilliam—who was convicted in 1993 in Florida for murder and attempted armed robbery—told police he sold the gun to the woman who later shot McNair."

"McNair was shot to death on July 4 at his condo by his 20-year-old mistress, Sahel Kazemi, who then turned the gun on herself."

Naturally, nut balls eager to eliminate the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution immediately blame the availability of guns for McNair's murder.

However, if Gilliam had paid the price for murder with his own miserable life, Steve McNair would still be alive.

Wake up, America! We need tougher, much tougher laws on the death penalty rather than more gun controls.

Guns do not kill people--convicted felons like Gilliam do, or aid and abet in such!