Thursday, February 6, 2014

We have “A Few Good Men”; We Need “Good Leaders”!

We have “A Few Good Men”; We Need “Good Leaders”!

February 6, 2014 by Billy and Karen Vaughn
We are all familiar with the US Marine Corps slogan “Looking for a Few Good Men.” Truth is, America’s military has always had plenty of “good men.” What it seems to lack in spades is good leaders.
Recently, we met former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the set of Hannity. We’d spent most of our day scouring his newly released book, Duty, hoping to better understand the seeming total lack of leadership and direction our military has been subjected to in recent years. In all honesty, there were no revelations in Mr. Gates’s book, only confirmations of what we already understood – this Commander-in-Chief had turned his back on the men and women still fighting in Afghanistan before the lights went out in the voting booths in November 2008.
As parents of a Navy SEAL killed in action, perhaps the most difficult words to swallow in his entire memoir were the following: “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission.” First, let it be known that in a warrior’s heart, if you don’t support his mission, you don’t support him.
He is his mission.
How could any president, with a clear conscience, send men and women to fight and die for a cause in which he himself does not believe? To do so is to spit in the face of not only the embattled warrior but also every family member he or she leaves behind… time and time again.
Second, if you truly support those who offer their lives on your behalf, you will most certainly deliver to them a clear, concise strategy for success – also known as VICTORY – whether you believe in their mission or not. This is the least they deserve when they lace up their boots for yet another day (or night) of battle.
From a broader perspective, though, this family is most troubled by a question we have heard many times in the past few weeks: “Why did Robert Gates wait until now to bear his soul on all of these troubling issues he dealt with from 2009 through 2011?” We would very much like an answer to that question, as well.
Eight hundred and fifty US soldiers have taken their last breath on the battlefields of Afghanistan since Mr. Gates left his post and disappeared into silence. They were fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters bound to “Duty” and honor 7,000 miles away from all they loved and all those who loved them. Eight hundred and fifty families greeted flag-draped coffins while Mr. Gates settled into retirement… lips sealed.
From July of 2011 through September of 2012, over five thousand US soldiers returned home seriously wounded. Although statistics are not yet available from October 2012 till present, one can only imagine the enormity. As heartfelt as his words were regarding the reverence he has for our troops, Mr. Gates left us grasping to understand why he waited so long to sound the alarm on this inept administration.
This nation had a right to know. We had a right to cast an informed vote in 2012. We should have been told that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both acknowledged they’d put career before the lives of our nation’s heroes… before the life of our only son. We should have been told that our Vice President, the second in command of our military forces, hadn’t made a sound decision on national defense in four decades. This isn’t a joke. There are no chuckles about Uncle Joe’s ineptitude around the dinner table of a fallen soldier.
Silence reigned, and heroes died.
We are better than this.




*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]


To those who have taken the Oath, Remember the Oath!
To those who have not and believe in the Constitution,
Take a similar Oath now to the Constitution!
Remember that those who make laws contrary to the Constitution,
Those who enforce laws contrary to the Constitution,
And those who give orders contrary to the Constitution,
Have become domestic enemies of the Constitution!
It doesn't take a Judge or a lawyer to know the difference!

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 164, 176. (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. 

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442.
Teddy's Answer to Diversity!

T
here is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.
— T
heodore Roosevelt, speech before the Knights of Columbus, 1915, New York
Teddy's Answer to Bush!
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
— T
heodore Roosevelt
Teddy's Answer to Bush & Congress
"We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure.  Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public.  Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity."  — Theodore Roosevelt
Want to be on our lists? 


Write to usvfnews@charter.net  to be off lists!
It will take up to 72 Hours to take you off of lists!
Bill's Vietnam Memorial Page
http://www.wjpbr.com


TREY GOWDY LOVES THE COUNTRY AND HAS THE GUTS TO NOT REMAIN SILENT.

TREY GOWDY LOVES THE COUNTRY AND HAS THE GUTS TO NOT REMAIN SILENT.




Gowdy's a good man and admittedly, we have not looked at the video yet, but the wordsmithing is worth noting.
            there is no appetite for Amnesty as it is commonly defined.
The problem with that statement is that Mr. Boehner has already made it clear on muliple occasions that - as far as he is concerned - the American people define Amnesty as CITIZENSHIP and that no one considers permenant legal status to be Amnesty…

Of course, that's NOT how just about anyone with a pulse actually defines Amnesty.

But hey. who are WE (or Websters Dictionary for that matter) to define what words mean, when our elected officials will DECREE  for us  what they mean at any given moment in time and then give us their positions?

To quote Bill Clinton: "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

So, Boehner has no appetite for Amnesty "as it is commonly defined" ... Why could Boehner not tell Gowdy that there's no appetite for Amnesty PERIOD

Trey Gowdy: There’s no appetite for Amnesty among my colleagues in the House

Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 4:38 PM in Featured Politics | 57 Comments
By The Right Scoop

Gowdy says the immigration proposal that his committee is focused on and one that Boehner has been very supportive of has nothing to do with winning elections or appealing to groups who formerly didn’t associate with the Republican Party. Rather he says it has to do with border security, internal security, and what’s best for the country and those are the principles Boehner will likely put into writing. He says, among his colleagues in the House, there is no appetite for Amnesty as it is commonly defined.

GOOD Intel Stuff

Hi guys, thought was quite interesting...something poof(& cobra) always have said...

 

Reply
1daycloser
02/06/2014 1:13pm

Thousands of fraudsters have been caught in the 'sting' net and will be prosecuted. Bankers, politicians, pretty much anyone connected with trying to set themselves up, and others, to greedily game this worldwide CRV in their favor. They have been caught "red handed" and WILL face criminal consequences.

And yes, the common people will still be entitled to the contract rate when the final curtain blows wide open.

Most people don't do the research (online) to really know the TRUTH, and I'm not allowed to give a link here (unfortunately) to show you my higher sources for this truth intel. Recaps doesn't allow to reveal this, which would ultimately be a Godsend of revelation for our confused masses.

This "sting operation" is the main reason for the delay my friends, and all the more better for us! The scum are being taken out of the big picture to benefit the new system being put into place. No more "business as usual"! Out with the old- in with the new!

Keep your eyes on your TV. Soon the controlled media will have to bust open to reveal what's going on in the real world! Expect many many more to be "leaving"….it's ALL good. It's almost done!

A Fresh look At The Boston Bombing Story

99% of this video is absolutely brilliant.

AN AMAZING VIDEO!!!

A complete demolition of the key "hero"
story of the Boston Bombing.

Video:



Lindsey Graham: Hillary Should Remain Focus of Benghazi Probes

Lindsey Graham: Hillary Should Remain Focus of Benghazi Probes

Wednesday, 05 Feb 2014 05:43 PM




Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should remain the focus of investigations into the Benghazi attack — a different take than that of Rep. Darrel Issa of California, who says prevention is the top priority.

"[Clinton] is likely to run for president . . . She has said repeatedly that she did not know of the additional security request to enhance security at the consulate from the time it was attacked in June until it was overrun on Sept. 11, even though the secretary of defense knew about the request," Graham told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"Are you telling me the secretary of state never asked any questions or made any inquiries about a consulate that had been previously attacked? How could the secretary of defense know about the request for security? So, she's either out of touch or that's not true . . .  [It's] a question of accountability."

Story continues below video.


On HBO's "Real Time" with Bill Maher, Issa said: "The fact is, Benghazi is a story of making sure it doesn't happen again. It's a story of, will the system work when an ambassador says, 'I need more security;' instead, he gets less security?"

But Graham says Clinton's culpability, along with an ongoing coverup of the real facts by the Obama administration, must be at the forefront.

"The noose is beginning to tighten. The president got away with it seven weeks before an election . . . trying to create a narrative that this was a protest caused by video [instead of] the truth that it was a preplanned terrorist attack by al-Qaida operatives," he said.

"It was the first sign of what's going on in the world today, the rise of al-Qaida. So, the real story in Benghazi beyond the four dead Americans, which is heartbreaking, tragic, is the failure of Obama's foreign policy.

"When the commander-in-chief and his team distort intelligence and basically cover up what happened to four people in the line of duty for political purposes, that's a very big deal," Graham said.

While Graham and Issa appear to differ on the top priorities of the Benghazi probe, the Palmetto State lawmaker praised his Republican colleague.

"Darrell Issa has done as much as anyone to get to the bottom of Benghazi, and I really admire what he's done on the Oversight Committee," Graham said.


Libya Fallout Gives Rise to Obama-Clinton Feud

Libya Fallout Gives Rise to Obama-Clinton Feud

 
by Tony Lee 13 Oct 2012
 
 

A nasty rift has opened up between President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the fallout from the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. This feud may undermine and threaten Obama’s reelection chances. 

Obama and Clinton both do not want to be held responsible for the negligence before and the cover-up after the Libya attacks. Clinton biographer Ed Klein on Friday reported that Bill Clinton, sensing Obama’s political team wants to pin legal and political blame on the State Department and Hillary Clinton, has been working on doomsday and contingency scenarios “to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.”
“If relations between Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department rupture publicly over the growing Benghazi scandal, that could damage the Democratic ticket and dim Obama’s chances for re-election,” Klein writes.
According to Klein’s sources, Bill Clinton has assembled an informal legal team in case there are cables or other evidence that would legally implicate Hillary. Klein also told The Daily Caller that Bill has even considered advising Hillary to resign if the Obama administration tries to make her the “scapegoat.”
On Friday, there were signs the White House was preparing to do to throw Hillary Clinton and the State Department under the bus. 
White House press secretary Jay Carney, when asked if Obama and Biden had "never been briefed" about the fact that more security was needed in Libya, essentially blamed the State Department, saying, “matters of security personnel are appropriately discussed and decided upon at the State Department by those responsible for it.”
Carney repeated a variation of this line throughout the press briefing. 
Carney's comments came a day after Vice President Joe Biden not only contradicted State Department officials but himself threw the intelligence community under the bus when he said the Obama administration did not know U.S. interests in Libya needed more security before the attacks and that the intelligence community changed its story after.
Hillary Clinton went to a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conference on the Middle East and North Africa Friday and tried to deflect blame from herself and the State Department -- some damage control of her own. 
She insisted the United States cannot guarantee “perfect security” for its diplomats overseas, though Stevens is the first ambassador to have been murdered overseas since 1979 under the Carter administration.

“We will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism, or achieve perfect security,” Clinton said. “Our people cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs.”
Clinton then claimed the reaction of the Middle East street “supports rather than discredits the promise of the Arab Spring.” Americans, she asserted, needed to look at the “full picture” and not just the “violent acts of a small number of extremists against the aspirations and actions of the region's people and governments” that are in the headlines.

Clinton said Americans "cannot sacrifice accuracy to speed" in finding out the facts that led to the Libya attacks, and the Middle East cannot "return to the false choice between freedom and stability.”
Klein writes that the long-simmering feud between Obama and the Clintons has only gotten worse after the Democratic National Convention. The bad blood between Obama and the Clinton family dates back to the 2008 Democratic primary, and Obama's advisers had to convince Obama to give Clinton a prominent role at the convention. 

Klein writes “the latest quarrel began when Clinton heard that Obama was behaving so cocky about his first debate against Mitt Romney that he wasn’t taking his debate prep seriously.”


Clinton offered to give Obama some advice, and Obama brushed him off.
Klein writes “the former president was dumbfounded that Obama had ignored his offer, and his hurt feelings quickly boiled over into anger.”
“Bill thought that he and Obama were on friendly terms after the convention,” a source told Klein. “He couldn’t believe that the White House didn’t even extend him the courtesy of a return phone call. He concluded that Obama’s arrogance knows no bounds.”
There is no love lost between Obama and the Clintons, and they could mutually destroy their political futures in the days ahead. Team Obama could destroy Hillary Clinton's 2016 prospects by scapegoating her for the Libya attacks. But Hillary Clinton, by potentially resigning or pointing to evidence that implicates Obama and Biden, can just as easily torpedo Obama's chances at getting reelected. 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/12/Obama-Clinton-Rift-Over-Libya-Threatens-Obama-Re-election