Almost every day we learn about a new and exciting scientific study that finally proves global warming is for real.  Within days, if not hours, we learn that the opposite is true.  Virtually all of the recent studies have shown that the earth is colder, if it is changing at all.  Of course global warm alarmists believe that the global cooling is actually proof of global warming.  If you understand that reasoning, stop reading now because you are beyond hope.

The following link is from the unofficialnetworks.com.  Unfortunately, this is far more likely to be accurate than the nonsense in the main stream media:

http://unofficialnetworks.com/winter-weather-forecast-20112012-extreme-winter-parts-31096/

In case you haven’t noticed, it is getting colder not warmer.  Last year was a bitch and this year looks even worse.  The following link is from Fairbanks Alaska:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/weird-news/fairbanks-hit-with-record-breaking-cold-below/article_77406c72-1305-11e1-a3b5-001cc4c03286.html

The temperature was -41 F below zero.  This broke a record set back in 1969.  Now I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and I can remember mornings when it was 40 F below zero, but that was in January or February, not November.  To those of you, who have never experienced this type of weather, let me enlighten you.  The radio stations give walk warnings.  If you walk outside in this weather you have a good chance of getting frostbite in your lungs.  It is a decidedly unpleasant experience.  I can remember days when I walked backward to school because it was impossible to walk anywhere while facing the wind.  At -40 Fahrenheit the ground literally creaks.  If you are fortunate enough to get your car to start, it groans and you can hear the ground creak as you drive over the snow.  Ok, I must admit that I never actually walked to school when it was -40 F.  That is because school was closed.  We would bundle up and use the day off to go sledding.  -40F was never enough to keep us indoors.

But, I digress.  The point is that -40F is darn cold and to have this weather as early as November is not encouraging.  Here in Northern California; this is not a big problem.  In fact, the summer just ended was marvelous.  There were very few days where the temperature got over 100 degrees and it was GREAT!  I wish it was like this every year.  Now we are getting slightly cooler weather, which means it rains and the temperature drops into the high 40’s at night.  In upper Michigan we referred to this weather pattern as summer.

If this forecast is accurate, and it sure looks accurate, then it is going to be difficult to convince anyone that global warming is going to kill humanity.  Of course that will not slow down the New York Times.

Now there is more evidence that the main stream media has conspired, for years with  the so-called scientific community to hide the truth about the inconvenient lack of global warming:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html

I always have one simple suggest to liberals who still believe in global warming.  “Don’t sell your coat.”  

 TDM

If you listen to the pundits on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN et al, then you probably think Rick Perry is on the fast track to oblivion.  They have clearly written him off.  In most years they would be right.  His brain freeze during a national debate was painful to watch.  But, this is not a normal year and Perry is not a normal candidate.  He has never lost an election and the road to perdition is paved with people who underestimated him.  He has the added advantage of watching his opponents self-destruct.  Herman Cain is an intriguing guy, but he has made far too many mistakes to survive as a Presidential candidate.  Newt Gingrich has a long history of self-annihilation.  His bizarre decision to start talking about amnesty for illegal aliens bordered on suicidal.  It is almost as if Gingrich thinks he is so brilliant that he no longer cares what people think.  I like Gingrich, but will be surprised if he does not go down in self-inflicted flames.  Since no one in their right mind thinks Santorum, or Bachmann stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning against Obama, and since Ron Paul has the surrender monkey on his back that leaves Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.  (I am ignoring Huntsman because he is probably the only candidate more unacceptable to conservatives than Romney.  In addition, like it or not, he has the same Mormon problem that never quite goes away.)

It is hard to make a case for someone running in the single digits in the polls actually winning the nomination, but at this point the poll that counts the most is the money poll.  The votes that matter right now are from those people who are ready willing and able to fund a Presidential campaign.  If the following story is accurate, Rick Perry remains the only candidate, other than Romney, who appears capable of raising enough money:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/23/3282231/rick-perrys-pouring-it-on-in-iowa.html

I watched the debate and Rick Perry more than held his own.  He didn’t score any knock out punches and he didn’t deliver any brilliant lines, but he looked competent.  He also showed a lot more personal knowledge about foreign affairs than expected.  Newt Gingrich always looks like the smartest guy in the room and this debate was no exception.  But he also looks like the most arrogant and snarkiest guy in the room. Perry wasn’t brilliant, but he was smart enough and he was far more impressive than Herman Cain.

Perry is pouring a lot of time and money into Iowa and he has the type of organization that can really work there.  If he comes in first, second or even third in Iowa it will change everything.

I really can’t possibly predict anything.  The whole process has been beyond bizarre.  But, as it was in the beginning, it always seems to end up with Mitt Romney and anybody but Romney (“ABR”).  If Gingrich self-destructs, as he has done so often in the past, people in the ABR crowd are going to be looking around for a horse to ride.  Unless someone else enters the race, with a lot of money and a competent organization, the only horse they are likely to see looks a lot like Perry.  Donald Trump is making noise about running again, but while he has the cash, he does not have the organization.  I really don’t see how anyone else, with the possible exception of Huckabee, could pull it off this late in the game.  Huckabee, for better or worse, appears to have hooked his wagon up to Romney.  So, if you follow the money, that leaves:  Rick Perry.  If he looks up to the task, this could get very interesting.  If he doesn’t measure up, say hello to President Romney

 Happy Thanksgiving.

TDM

Newt Gingrich is soaring in the polls, primarily because a lot of people just don’t want Mitt Romney.  This is likely to be a short-lived phenomenon.  The problem is that Newt Gingrich has too much baggage.  Not just a little baggage, a train load of baggage.  The press ignored this until now because he was not considered to be a serious candidate.  That has changed and we all need to brace ourselves for an onslaught of negative stories about Gingrich, most of which will unfortunately be true.  Gingrich will burn very bright, for a short period of time, but he will most likely flame out just as quickly. 

Herman Cain is falling like a stone and the descent is about to turn into free fall.  His lawyer warned any women considering making sexual harassment accusations against his client.  That was incredibly dumb.  All of the professional women, including those at Fox News, immediately picked up on that.  This is the type of thing the Clintons did to try and cover-up Bill’s long pattern of sexual harassment.  In addition, Cain looked way out of his league during the CBS debate on foreign policy.  Finally, he says some really dumb things as demonstrated by the following link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/14/cain_backs_collective_bargaining_for_federal_employees.html

Even Obama knows better than to support collective bargaining for federal employees!

In the meantime, Rick Perry was absolutely brilliant in responding to his deer in the headlights moment.  He didn’t blame his medication, or Ron Paul, or the moderator, or anything else.  He just admitted he stepped in it and then went on a national television tour making fun of himself.  The important thing is that he did not become defensive.  In the process, Rick Perry showed himself to be that most rare creature in the world, a politician who doesn’t take himself too seriously.  None of the other Republican candidates could have pulled that off. 

In addition, Perry finally seems to have shed himself of the professional handlers who were trying to manage his campaign.  For example, I believe the fake looking confrontation between Perry and Romney about hiring illegals was a disaster.  It made Perry look cheap and opportunistic.  In addition, his wooden performances during the debates could have been the result of over rehearsing and trying to memorize talking points.  In many ways this is similar to what happened to Sarah Palin.  When the professionals took over and tried to handle her after she was picked by John McCain, it was a disaster.  She looked out of her element and unprepared.  However, if you watch her now, it is clear that Sarah does a lot better just being Sarah.

Rick Perry does well being Rick Perry.  His speech in New Hampshire, where the main stream media wiggled their nose and wondered if he was drunk, got a standing ovation.  The reason was that they saw a real person and they liked what they saw.  During the last debate Perry was very good.  He stopped giving scripted answers and just spoke from the heart.  The man has been Governor for a long time and he doesn’t need to memorize talking points.  Perhaps getting embarrassed on national television was what he needed to stop listening to professional handlers.

In any event, my point is that the baggage train about to descend on Newt Gingrich and the complete collapse of Herman Cain is going to dwarf the Perry wrinkle, where he went brain dead on national television.   Ultimately, we are down to Mitt Romney and…someone else.  Unless Perry does it again, I think it just may end up being a Mitt-vs-Rick race after all.  

So far, this race has been quite different than anyone could have predicted.  Odds are we will continue to be surprised.

TDM

Just a few weeks ago I would have given Newt Gingrich zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee for President.  Last summer his campaign basically collapsed under its own weight.  He was out of money, out of time and out of ideas.  He may literally have been the only person left who thought he was a legitimate candidate for President.

Even as late as today I thought this would boil down to a Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry affair.  But, Newt was still hanging around by his fingernails and he just may have hit an inside straight in the biggest game of all.  Rick Perry self-destructed tonight when he couldn’t quite remember which three government agencies he would eliminate.  He flat out drew a blank and could not remember the Department of Energy.  It was the ultimate deer in the headlights moment and I think he is toast.  Herman Cain is also gone because of the sex scandals.  Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman never were in the running.  Ron Paul remains Ron Paul.  He is fun to watch but was never a serious candidate for President.  That leaves two people standing, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.  At this point, against all odds, Newt definitely has a shot at winning the nomination.

 I must admit, I did not predict this.  I really thought Rick Perry would do better than this.  Perhaps he will be able to just laugh this off, but I doubt it.  It is really difficult to survive being laughed off the stage.  In many ways it is unfair, because all of us have drawn a blank at one time or another.  But, when it happens during a Presidential debate it is really bad. 

 This is so shocking and unexpected that almost anything could happen.  I wouldn’t even rule out a last minute entry by another candidate like Jeb Bush, or even Sarah Palin.  A lot of people in the Republican establishment will not sleep well tonight after this performance.  They aren’t thrilled with Mitt Romney, and Gingrich has a world class load of baggage.  I am positive there will be another mad rush to recruit Chris Christie, but that seems very unlikely to succeed.  For better or worse it is now the Mitt and Newt show.  May the best man win!

TDM

I cringe whenever I see Gloria Allred.  She is a disgusting ambulance chaser who never misses an opportunity to pontificate in front of a microphone.  She is shameless in her rush to exploit any potential opportunity.  She literally makes my skin crawl.

 However, I ran a nationwide claim department for many years and one lesson I quickly learned is that the truth is not dependent on whether or not you like someone.  I have had people I liked and admired tell me things that turned out to be incorrect.  In some cases they even believed what they said, but the facts proved them wrong.  I have also had total scumbags who I wouldn’t trust with a spare nickel tell the truth.  I learned to look at the facts and evaluate them on their own merit, without regard to my personal opinion about the person, or persons, involved.

 I have not personally investigated any of this, but it is clear that Cain has a huge problem.  His response has been pathetic with more time angrily dismissing this as a witch hunt with less than satisfactory answers to very specific questions.  There is an old saying among lawyers…When you have the facts, pound the facts.  When you don’t have the facts, pound the opponent.  When you don’t have the facts, and you can’t pound the opponent, just pound.  Cain has presented very few facts, but has done a whole lot of pounding.

 Ironically, this could have all gone away if he had just given a vague apology and pledged better behavior in the future.  But instead, he is trying to prove that all these women are liars.  They have morphed from being angry and embarrassed at what happened to furious.  How would you respond if the person whom you believe sexually harassed you was now calling you a liar?  If the sexual harassment was real, I can’t imagine anything that would make them angrier.

 I watched Anderson Cooper tonight, and I was taken aback at how well he handled this story.  He let Herman Cain tell his side of the story, without commentary other than to say it was an explicit denial.  But then the story took a deadly turn when Gloria Borgia, who is personal friends with one of the women, contacted her by phone and was given some additional information.  Gloria obviously has known this woman for several years and is a close friend.  She admitted that right from the start.  Ultimately, it made her reporting much more credible.  To summarize she said that the accuser told her that the charges against Cain were serious and consistent and that she definitely received a cash settlement in exchange for the harassment.  Unless I am very wrong, this woman is going to ooze credibility.  In addition, she apparently kept copies of her written complaint about Cain and has this well documented.  To cap it off, she is also a professional spokesperson.  She is now talking about having a joint press conference with the other accusers.  I fear that this will be devastating for Cain. 

 I wish that I could just dismiss this as a smear campaign based on nonsense.  Unfortunately, what facts we know are far from helpful for Herman Cain.  So far, it is Herman Cain who has demonized people with little facts to support the accusations.  So far, it is Herman Cain who has had to change his story.  And, so far, it is Herman Cain who has given a version of events that is impossible to listen to with a straight face.  When Herman Cain says the only issue is that he pointed out that this woman was the same height as his wife and this resulted in a sexual harassment charge he has less credibility that Obama trying to say William Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood.  Following is the LA Times article about the proposed news conference:

 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cains-accusers-20111108,0,7925369.story

 Sean Hannity spent most of his show last night trying to pass this off as a vast liberal left conspiracy.  It was a major mistake.  It has about the same amount of credibility as when Hillary Clinton tried to dismiss the Monica Lewinsky scandal as a vast right wing conspiracy.  It didn’t work when Hillary tried it, and it won’t work when Hannity tries it.  Because of the poor handling by the Cain staff, this has turned from a he-said-she-said case, with vague accusations from anonymous accusers, to a he-said-she-said-she said- she said-she-said-and-he-witnessed story.  I don’t predict a good result.

 TDM

It is clear that Herman Cain is the subject of a feeding frenzy by the main stream media.  The same media that totally ignored all the Obama scandals went into overdrive to cover this story.  It is a huge double standard, particularly when the same media downplayed the Clinton sex scandals and, more recently, the John Edwards’ scandal. 

 It is tempting to just dismiss the allegations as a liberal witch hunt.  A lot of people are sick and tired of the overwhelming bias by the main stream media.  But, just because you don’t like the way the main stream media is gloating over this story doesn’t mean they have their facts wrong.  In this case, there are more and more details emerging that have the ugly odor of truth.   In addition, Cain has done an extremely poor job of handling this.  He should have given a carefully written statement about saying things that were obviously misinterpreted and apologize to anyone he may have offended.  People like him and would prefer to cut him some slack.  But instead of doing that, Cain foolishly attacked the Perry campaign with absolutely zero evidence to support that allegation.  Then he said the women making these accusations were liars and the charges had no merit.  As a result, these women who would have been glad to just let this slide are now very likely to go public to defend their personal honor.  It is a battle that Cain did not need and one he cannot win.  Politico advised the Cain campaign that they were going to run the story several days in advance.  It is unbelievable that they were so unprepared to handle this.

In addition, it is important to remember that the reason the main stream media covers these types of scandals more for conservatives than for liberals is that it matters more.  Liberals did not care that Bill Clinton was obviously guilty of sexual harassment.  Ultimately, the Democrats in the United States Senate decided that staying in power was more important than the personal integrity of the Presidency.  They basically admitted that he committed perjury, but convinced themselves it didn’t matter because it was just about sex.  They flat out ignored the obvious sexual harassment involved in the Monica Lewinsky incident.  But, Bill Clinton would not have survived as President if he had been a Republican.  Not because of opposition from Democrats, but rather because Republicans themselves would not have tolerated his behavior.

This story could very likely end up hurting Herman Cain’s presidential campaign, if not ending it all together.  The bias in the main stream media has seldom been more obvious and more destructive.  But Republicans need to avoid falling into the conditional morality trap.  The bias and over enthusiastic reporting by the main stream media should not matter.  What should matter is the truth.  We must not allow the main stream media to destroy a candidate with false and inflammatory charges.  We should have held them more accountable for the “Bush lied; people died” misrepresentations.  But we must also avoid tolerating intolerable behavior just because we find the messenger to be disgusting.  There is a distinct possibility that Mr. Cain has a pattern of behavior that is not, and should not, be acceptable. 

In my opinion, the worst possible outcome would be for Republicans to decide that personal morality and ethical behavior doesn’t matter after all.  If Herman Cain is to win the Republican nomination, it must be because he is the best person for the job.  The worst possible reason to choose a candidate for President would be because of a knee jerk backlash in response to the unfair coverage by the main stream media.   If that happens: what distinguishes us from Democrats?

 TDM

This is a story that is being ignored by the main stream media, including Fox News.  The FBI just released a video regarding the major Russian spy ring discovered operating in the U.S.  The following article described this in detail: 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/31/fbi-releases-russian-spy-ring-papers-video/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl14%7Csec3_lnk1%7C108859

Note:  The White House intervened and stopped the arrest of these spies:

The swap was Washington’s idea, raised when U.S. law enforcement officials told President Barack Obama it was time to start planning the arrests. Agents launched a series of raids across the northeast after a decade of intensive surveillance of the ring, which officials say never managed to steal any secrets.

The case was brought to a swift conclusion before it could complicate the president’s campaign to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia, strained by years of tensions over U.S. foreign policy and the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. All 10 of the captured spies were charged with failing to register as foreign agents.

This is stunning!  The FBI investigates a spy ring for a decade.  They alert President Obama that it is time to start making arrests and Obama responds by giving the spies a get out of jail card before anyone can even question them.  What was the rush!   Shouldn’t someone have asked the obvious question?  Why was President Obama so anxious to get these spies out of town?  Was it really just a naïve attempt to “reset” our relations with Russia?  Or was it that too many of these spies had successfully integrated Democratic political circles.  At least one spy was directly connected to a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser?

They came; they saw, and Obama hustled them out of town.  Someone should really find out why.

TDM

On January 27, 1973, President Nixon signed the Paris Peace According ending the Vietnam War.  At that time the North Vietnamese had agreed to cease fire.  The Viet Cong also agreed, but by that time they were so weak they were barely recognizable.  The Viet Cong had been virtually wiped out as a result of the 1968 Tet Offensive.  The following article from Clemson is one of the more accurate accounts of the meaing of the Tet Offensive:

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/edmoise/viet8.html

Note:  When the population did not rise up to support them, and the ARVN did not collapse, a large proportion of these men were killed. This weakened the NLF organization in the countryside very drastically, and it never completely recovered.

Nixon promised U.S. Air Power support to our ally, South Vietnam, in exchange for their agreement to sign the treaty.  If you want to ready more on the treaty, the attached link is to the history.com link:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paris-peace-accords-signed

If this agreement had been honored, the United States would have been the victor.  Both sides agreed to withdraw from Laos and Cambodia and the DMZ at the 17^th Parallel remained the provisional dividing line.  There was a vague agreement to re-unify Vietnam, but the North promised to not use military force to achieve that goal.  This is similar to the agreement to unify Taiwan and China.

The main provisions are outlined in the following:

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Notes_Paris_Peace.htm

There was a new according signed in June of 1973, strengthening the agreement.  Following is the link to that agreement:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kissinger-and-le-duc-tho-sign-new-peace-agreement

At this point, the Democratic congress intervened and made sure our involvement in Vietnam ended and that no peace agreement could be successful.

On July 1, 1973 Congress voted to end all bombing in Cambodia after August 15, 1973

By December 31, 1973 our military contingent in Vietnam was down to 50 people

On August 9, 1974 Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States

On August 20, 1974 U.S. aid to Vietnam was cut from $1 billion to $700 million

On December 13, 1974 North Vietnam attacked the Phuc Luong province.  The U.S. failed to respond.

On January 14, 1975 Secretary of Defense Schlesinger warned congress that the U.S. was failing to keep its promise to support South Vietnam.

On January 25, 1975, President Ford sends a special message to congress warning them of the desperate need to support Vietnam and accurately predicting the consequences.  Following is a transcript of that message:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=5216#axzz1bpYcDJ6b

It was ignored.

Saigon fell on April 30, 1975.

The United States Military did not lose the Vietnam War.  There is zero evidence that North Vietnam thought a military victory was remotely possible.  It was lost by the Democratic Congress.  They not only refused to allow Gerald Ford to use our military force to enforce the peace treaty, they cut off all military aid to South Vietnam.  After a Democrat Congress and a Democratic President decided to fight the war in Vietnam, after a Republican President found a way to end it with honor, Democrats in congress threw it all away with little or no regard for the fate of our allies or the sacrifice of our troops.  The only thing worse than losing a war; is to win it and then throw it all away as if it never mattered.

Now we have a Democratic President who is prepared to throw away any chance at victory in Iraq.  Don’t be surprised if there are loud calls from Democrats to cut for cutting off all military aid to Iraq.  I expect Iran to challenge us in Iraq almost immediately after the last troops leave.  I expect Obama to ignore that challenge.  Unfortunately, I also expect similar results to what happened in Vietnam. 

Today the main stream media tends to blame the entire Vietnam War on Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, although it was Johnson, not Nixon who started that war.  And it was the Democratic Congress, not Gerald Ford, who lost it.  We can expect, after Iraq disintegrates, that the main stream media will blame it all on George Bush.  Barack Obama will be barely mentioned.  I also predict that 36 years later the main stream media will continue to lie about what happened. 

 Today the media contantly reminds us that the lesson of Vietnam is that we were caught in a quagmire in a war we could not win.  The real truth is that military superiority may win on the battlefield but that doesn’t mean a lot if congress is dominated by a bunch of spineless liberals who don’t seem to notice or care.

TDM

According to the following CBS News report, this is how Hillary Clinton responded to the death of Muammar Qaddafi:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html

If President Bush or any of the Republican candidates for President had said this the main stream media would have hyperventilated.  It is incredibly tasteless and irresponsible.   Obama himself traveled the globe apologizing for the U.S. allegedly interfering in other countries.  The hypocrisy and stupidity of the liberal left is jaw dropping.

Geraldo Rivera was so thrilled that he called this the Obama doctrine.  Apparently our new foreign policy is to just kill anyone who gets in the way and let someone else pick up the pieces.  In this case he is counting on good results from the French and the Germans.  They have both done so well in the past!

I am glad Qaddafi is gone.  But, in recent years, he was no longer a threat to us.  We basically waited until his political base collapsed and then bombed the remnants into submission.  It was a good demonstration on how sophisticated air power can destroy an inferior military, operating in a desert, with accuracy and precision.  However we are yet to learn what is left behind.  We are very good at killing people.  Is that the new American foreign policy?

It appears as if there are at least 13 different tribes ruling different parts of Libya.  These tribes pretty much agreed on getting rid of Qaddafi, but not much else.  Odds are very high that they will quickly turn on each other.  After the Tsar was over thrown in Russia, there was a provisional government promising freedom and democracy.  It lasted 8 months. The provisional government, made up of moderates, was never able to establish control.  The communists took over complete control after a bloody civil war.  The rest is history.  That is the problem with moderate governments.  They are quickly overwhelmed by people more than willing to resort to unthinkable violence. 

Libya is likely to go one of two ways, both bad.  It will either descend into lawless anarchy or a new strong man will come in and take over.  Any strongman is probably going to need support from the Muslim extremists.  The least likely result is freedom and democracy.  That is only possible if someone strong enough to take control and provide security takes over and then willingly relinquishes control to a democratic government.  That odds of that happening in Libya are very low.

The real lesson of Iraq was that democracy without security is anarchy.  The U.S. had to send in the surge to take control of the country before there was even a potential for a self-sustaining democracy.  Thanks to Obama’s run for the exits, Iraq too may descend back into chaos.  Unfortunately if that happens in Iraq, Iran will quickly try to step into the void.  They will be opposed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations.  Keep in mind that Iran allegedly tried to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. 

In Libya, Obama may have just unleashed a bloody civil war.  In Iraq, he may have turned a relatively stable situation into a violent regional war.  Most regional experts predict that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so will every other major country in the Middle East.  The risk of a nuclear conflict will become extremely high.  The only thing certain is that things in Iraq are far more likely to deteriorate than to improve.

It’s a real shame the liberal left is so busy celebrating to realize that Obama is the polar opposite to the foreign policy they have been demanding for decades.  I wouldn’t exactly call this less interference by the U.S.  But where are the anti-war protests.  Whether you agree with the need for this operation or not, it was a blatant display of arrogant U.S. military force with little or no regard to the ultimate outcome.  Unfortunately, Hillary described the Obama foreign policy to perfection:  “we came, we saw, we killed.” 

TDM

Anyone who watches President Obama speak and does the slightest amount of research, quickly realizes that he is a habitual liar.  Sadly the main stream media rarely notices.  But Fast & Furious is a scandal that is not going to go away and this time we have some very serious people asking some really important questions:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/10/house-republicans-ask-obama-for-information-on-fast-and-furious/

In March, during an interview on Univision, when discussing Fast & Furious, Obama said that neither he nor Attorney General Holder authorized it.  That statement is creating serious problems for Obama.  The problem is that about a month later Erik Holder, testifying under oath before congress, said that he had only learned about Fast & Furious a few weeks ago.  We already know that there are e-mail copied to Holder discussing this program as early as July of 2010.  Obama could literally be called as a witness to show that Holder committed perjury.  Someone must have told Obama that Holder had not authorized Fast & Furious, otherwise how did Obama know that.  It’s pretty hard to believe that Obama will ever admit to knowing about it before Holder.  This is the kind of smoking gun statement that cannot be ignored.  According to this report, Representatives Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy wrote the following question in a letter addressed directly to Obama:

To that end, if you knew the Attorney General did not authorize “Fast and Furious” how did you learn that and when did you learn that?” Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., wrote. “If you knew Attorney General Holder did not authorize it, inherent in that response is knowledge of who did authorize it.”

There are numerous reports that Fast & Furious involved a lot more than the ATF. According to the following article, there was full cooperation between ATF, ICE, the DEA and the IRS.  They are described as full partners by William Newell, the former head of the Phoenix office of the ATF:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/video-atf-agent-who-implemented-fast-a

The main stream media is way behind the curve in reporting on this story, but that is likely to change.  The stench has become overwhelming and thanks to Obama’s interview on Univision, it is now tied directly to the President of the United States.  No news agency can continue to ignore a story of this magnitude.  No one from either political party is even hinting that Fast & Furious was a good idea. 

Keep in mind that Obama didn’t need to authorize this to have a problem; he just needed to have participated in the cover-up.  Suddenly, the question:  “what did the President know and when did he know it” becomes extremely important.  It is increasing clear that there has been a major cover-up of this fiasco.

Anyone who has ever worked for any branch of the Federal Government quickly learns one simple truth.  The agencies are loath to work together.  That is one reason for the success of 9-11.  It is extremely unlikely that the ATF, ICE, The DEA and the IRS just got together and created this puppy.  Instead this was such an obviously bad idea that a more likely outcome would be for any agency approached by ATF to recognize a chance for glory and blow the whistle.  This kind of cooperation, particularly for such a really dumb idea, is only possible when orders come from the very top.  At a minimum, that would involve both Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano.  Guess who both of them report to?

Keep your eye on the birdie.  The White House needs a major distraction and they need it now.  There are reports of our troops massing at the Pakistani border with Afghanistan.  Obama recently ordered troops into the Sudan.  The administration is suddenly making a lot of loud noise about Iran.  Gaddaffi’s death is convenient, but it won’t solve the problem.  If this administration was willing to authorize something like Fast & Furious to solve an embarrassing mistake, what would they be willing to do to escape the consequences?

TDM