Republicans, Conservatives And Tea Party: Pres. Obama is Guaranteed Re-Election In 2012

Wayward Herring - The killing of Osama Bin Laden by President Obama has made it almost impossible for the Republicans to recapture the Presidency 2012. The killing of Bin Laden has destroyed the mantra that President Obama is incompetent and weak on national defense which has been a serious problem for Democrats ever since, the failed Carter Presidency. The killing of Bin Laden by President Obama has also, destroyed the myth that a Democrat President could not handle a major national security mission without complete failure.The mission was flawless and without error and the American people will remember this on election day. Therefore, President Obama has transformed himself into a strong Commander In Chief in the eyes on many Americans after the killing of the most wanted man on the planet earth and that will be a hard task for any Republican nominee to overcome in 2012 general election campaign. The American people love a winner and President Obama is the biggest winner in the entire world and they will reward him with a second term in office, even though we have 9% unemployment, gas prices at a near record high and food skyrocketing to it's highest levels in decades. The Republicans don't have a strong enough candidate right now who can beat President Obama with his one billion dollar campaign chest in a potential match up in the race for the White House. There is no way in hell Mitt Romney the father of Obamacare is going to beat President Obama and Gov. Huckabee will be eaten alive by the Obama mainstream media machine. The only hope the Republicans have of making the election campaign even close is by nominating Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rep. Paul Ryan Wisconsin or Sen. Marco Rubio  Florida will probably wait until 2016 to make a run for the Oval Office. Finally, it does not matter how much we cry about Obamacare, deficit or economy President Obama has found the silver bullet to remain in the White House for a second term and that is killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Hamas Threatens To Esclate Attacks If Israel Raids Persit

(Reuters) - Militant group Hamas said on Saturday it would escalate it attacks against Israel to include a wider range of targets if Israel failed to halt its aerial assaults on the Gaza Strip.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri blamed Israel for an escalation in violence. "If the Israeli escalation continues, amid international silence and complicity, the reactions by resistance factions will broaden," he told Reuters, saying such actions would be necessary to protect Palestinians in Gaza.

Violence has flared since Hamas claimed responsibility for firing a rocket at an Israeli school bus on Thursday, critically injuring a teenager. Hamas has said it was responding to previous lethal Israeli assaults on its members.

Saving The World Empire: Ground Troops In Libya

Michael S. Rozeff - In an article on the Libyan War on March 22, I predicted the war would grow in scope, air power wouldn’t win it, divisions in the Western alliance would worsen, that Gaddafi would change his tactics, and that this meant that the West would introduce ground troops. This has almost all happened. In Senate testimony, an American general says the war is stalemated (I doubt that but air power hasn’t won it), Gaddafi has indeed altered tactics, and the coalition could erode if ground troops are introduced. The article mentions American CIA teams in operation on the ground, and we had a report on Feb. 28 of forces from the U.S., Great Britain, and France already being in Libya.


Gen. Ham tells Senator Lindsey Graham the current strategy is not working.

General Ham says the U.S. may consider ground troops and/or an international ground force even though it has drawbacks. Western aims are (1) get Gaddafi out, (2) set up a new and friendly government, (3) protect Western oil investments, (4) control the revolts and revolutions in nearby oil-producing lands, (5) maintain the dollar as the pricing vehicle for oil, and (6) secure Western influence in North Africa and Africa more generally as opposed to Russian and Chinese interests. If troops are necessary to do this, they’ll use troops no matter what Gates or Obama have said. This entire regional turmoil, especially when it comes to Saudi Arabia, is not over. Its importance is as great or greater than the American loss of control over Iran in 1979, and that is the factor suggesting that the American leadership will exert whatever power it takes. This of course depends heavily on the decisions of one man: Emperor Obama. He tends toward international coalitions as a cover. He tends to compromise between the harder line Clinton and softer line Gates. He will be looking seriously at all his military and political options, just as General Ham says, due to the high stakes for the aims of American Empire.

Obama Sucessfully Shutdown Anti-War Movement

Kurt Nimmo - It is more evidence the antiwar movement is largely a left-vs-right distraction. A new study by U-M’s Michael Heaney and colleague Fabio Rojas of Indiana University shows that the antiwar movement in the United States demobilized as Democrats took over Congress and the White House.

A small, dedicated core of people protest against Obama’s third war.

“As president, Obama has maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan,” said Heaney. “The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity.”

“Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement have dissipated. The election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the antiwar movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions.”

“Since Democrats are more numerous in the population at large than are members of third parties, the withdrawal of Democrats from the movement in 2009 appears to be a significant explanation for the falling size of antiwar protests,” Heaney said. “Thus, we have identified the kernel of the linkage between Democratic partisanship and the demobilization of the antiwar movement.”

“Overall, our results convincingly demonstrate a strong relationship between partisanship and the dynamics of the antiwar movement. While Obama’s election was heralded as a victory for the antiwar movement, Obama’s election, in fact, thwarted the ability of the movement to achieve critical mass.”

Democrats and other liberal supporters of the establishment are not opposed to mass murder and wanton slaughter by the state – they merely oppose it when Republicans do it. Opposition is a partisan formality.

A corporate media poll conducted in late March on Obama’s handling of the unconstitutional attack on Libya shows that two-thirds of Democrat respondents support violating international law and pummeling the oil-rich north African country with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Congress Democrats often howled about “Bush’s Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, but supported them – including the mass murder of 1.5 million Iraqis, a war criminal of immense proportion – by continuing to fund them. The number of anti-war Democrats in Congress who worked to defund the illegal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq was miniscule.

Obama duped the so-called anti-war faction of his party during the election. He said he’d bring home the troops and close down Gitmo. During the primaries, he tried to make Hillary Clinton look like the war candidate.

Once elected as savior, Obama not only continued Bush’s war policies – in fact the war policies of the global elite – but expanded them. Troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon and the CIA stepped up the terror campaign in Pakistan. Gitmo remains open.

History repeats itself. In 1999, then president Clinton attacked Yugoslavia. Democrats and liberals cheered him on. Congress was silent. Only four Democrats objected. In the House, there was only one, Barbara Lee of California. In the Senate, just three – Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

Both Republicans and Democrats love mass murder and military conquest. War is the health of the state, declared Randolph Bourne as the First World War unfolded. The Great War extracted a great toll – 37 million casualties. London and Wall Street bankers cooked up that devastating war and every one since, including the one now expanding in Libya as a U.S. general hints the government will soon send in ground troops and thus initiate a third war in the Arab and Muslim Middle East.

Democrats are so enthusiastic about the murder campaign in Libya, they didn’t even bother to vote on it, not that Obama gave them a chance – like Bush before him, he used the unchecked power of a unitary presidency to attack the African country. “He has proceeded in a way that is cautions and thoughtful,” said a proud Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat. “He has put the ducks in a row before he decided the United States should take the lead for a short period of time to do what only we could do.”

Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich stands alone in the wilderness with Rep. Ron Paul. He said Obama’s unconstitutional attack “is an act of war” and an impeachable offense. “The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war,” he said in a lengthy speech on the House floor, a speech mostly ignored by fellow Democrats.

“It is hard to imagine that Congress, during the current contentious debate over deficits and budget cutting, would agree to plunge America into still another war, especially since America will spend trillions in total for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and incursions into Pakistan,” he said.

Really, it is not hard to imagine at all. Democrats and Republicans do the bidding of the global elite and the global bankster elite not only want war in the Middle East, they want the enslaving debt that invariably comes with it.

In 2003, as he prepared to attack Iraq, Bush dismissed the antiwar movement as a focus group. Democrats are not so crude. Instead, they deem their war “humanitarian,” as a previous war criminal, Bill Clinton, did as he bombed the former Yugoslavia with depleted uranium, in effect launching a nuclear war against that small country.

Seven U.N. Workers in Afghanistan Killed and Two Beheaded

David Nelson - Seven United Nations workers have been executed in the northern Afghanistan city of Mazar-e-Sharif, two of them by beheading, by demonstrators protesting the burning of a Koran at a church in Florida.
The victims of the worst-ever attack on UN personnel in Afghanistan included five guards from Nepal, and civilian staff from Norway, Sweden and Romania. Four local residents were also killed.

UN officials told The Daily Telegraph the final toll could rise as high as 20, and there were unconfirmed reports that the head of the United Nations Military Assistance Mission (Unama) in Mazar-e-Sharif had also been seriously injured

Local residents said about 2,000 demonstrators attacked UN guards stationed outside Unama compound, seized their weapons and began firing at police.

Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, a police spokesman, said the protesters beheaded two of the guards and shot others before scaling an anti-blast wall to topple a guard tower and set fire to buildings.

Few details were available on how the attack took place, but local residents said crowds began gathering there after a cleric at the city's central mosque urged worshippers at Friday prayers to call on the UN take action against Wayne Sapp, an evangelical preacher who burned a Koran at a service at a small fringe church in Gainesville, Flordia, on March 20.
The church is headed by Terry Jones, a pastor who threatened to burn a Koran in September, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Even though Mr Jones called off his planned action in the face of global outrage, five people were killed in protests targeting Nato facilities in Afghanistan. Pastor Jones told Sky News in the wake of the attack that the US "must take action".

Following the Koran burning, Maulvi Qayamuddin Kashaf, had called on American authorities to prosecute Mr Sapp as a war criminal. Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's President, had also described the Koran burning as a "crime against religion," and called on the US and UN to take action.

It is unclear how the demonstration in Mazar-e-Sharif turned violent, but Mr Noor said 20 "insurgents" involved in the killings had been arrested, suggesting they may have infiltrated the crowd. The crowd the turned on the guards outside the UN compound, and then settled

Mazar-i-Sharif is a relatively peaceful town, and was earmarked as one of the first where Nato troops would be replaced by Afghan forces.

There was confusion over the numbers of dead after Atta Mohammad Noor, the governor of Balkh province, said seven UN staff had been killed, including a woman. Later reports, however, placed the number at eight. Unama said it was aware of the incident, but did not disclose details on casualties, saying it was "working to ascertain all the facts."

Local police spokesman Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai said "two of the killed UN staff were beheaded." General Abdul Rauf Taj, a senior official, had earlier said that two guards were "shot in the head."

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, described the attack as "outrageous and cowardly," while Barack Obama, the US president, said he condemned it "in the strongest possible terms." William Hague, the foreign secretary, condemned the "brutal act".

Security at Nato and UN buildings in Afghanistan had been upgraded in recent weeks amid fears of attacks in protest at revelations that a 'Kill Squad' of American soldiers had killed innocent civilians and taken photographs of the bodies as trophies.

The US government has apologised for the atrocities, but its officials have been braced for retaliatory attacks since the photographs were published.

The UN's representative in Afghanistan, Staffan De Mistura, has flown in to Mazar-i-Sharif to manage the crisis, and was last night meeting local Nato military commanders and the local chief of police.

Gallup: Pres. Obama 44% Approval Rating On Libya

Ed Morrissey - Gallup polled adults over the weekend, before Barack Obama’s speech, to determine the support the President had for his adventure in Libya. He’d better hope that his speech moves the needle, because Obama only managed to eke out a tie, 44/44, on his handling of the crisis. The poll also shows a deep distaste for major involvement in military action in Libya:

Americans are evenly divided at 44% in their reaction to Obama’s handling of the situation in Libya — similar to his overall job approval rating in Gallup Daily tracking in recent days — with Democrats much more likely than Republicans to approve of how he is responding to Libya.

The “much more likely” is relative. Obama only gets a 61/28 from his own party, almost the exact opposite of the Republican 26/63. Independents split towards disapproval, 42/45. On another point, Republicans and Democrats are closer to agreement: both would prefer to see the US military remove Gaddafi from power rather than just enforce a no-fly zone (50/43 GOP, 50/37 Dems). Independents and self-described moderates and liberals prefer the no-fly zone approach.

When it comes to a preferred role in the Libyan military action, though, only Republicans favor a leading or major role over a minor role or no role at all (52/47). Among both independents (60%) and Democrats (63%), and among all ideological self-identifications, the majority want the US to only play a minor role or withdraw altogether.

Of course, that’s what Obama promised last night in his speech, but the AP points out that even relabeling the effort as a NATO mission doesn’t change who’s firing weapons into Libya:

OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

Call this a NINO operation — NATO In Name Only. As Americans learn this through observation, don’t expect a big bump for Obama in the next few iterations of this poll.

Mexican Marines Find 72 Bodies in Northern Mexico

MEXICO CITY — Mexican marines found the dumped bodies of 72 people at a rural location in northern Mexico following a shootout with suspected drug cartel gunmen that left one marine and three suspects dead, the Navy reported late Tuesday.

The cadavers of 58 men and 14 women were found at a spot near the Gulf coast south of the border city of Matamoros. It appears to be the largest drug-cartel body dumping ground found in Mexico since President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against drug trafficking in late 2006.

"The federal government categorically condemns the barbarous acts committed by criminal organizations," The Navy said in a statement. "Society as a whole should condemn these type of acts, which illustrate the absolute necessity to continue fighting crime with all rigor."

Mexican drug cartels often use vacant lots, ranches or mine shafts to dump the bodies of executed rivals or kidnap victims. The Navy did not give details on the victims' identities, who had killed them or whether the bodies had been buried.

The discovery of bodies came about when Marines manning a checkpoint on a highway in northern Tamaulipas state were approached by a wounded man who said he had been attacked by cartel gunmen at a nearby ranch. The man was placed under the protection of federal authorities.

Navy aircraft were dispatched to the scene, and when the gunmen saw them, they opened fire on the marines and tried to flee in a convoy of vehicles.

In the ensuing shootout, one marine and three suspected gunmen were killed. Navy personnel seized 21 assault rifles, shotguns and rifles, and detained a minor.

The youth, who was apparently part of the gang, was handed over to civilian prosecutors.

When marines searched the area, near the town of San Fernando, Tamaulipas, they found the bodies. It was unclear whether the victims had been killed at the same time or separately, and the Navy did not say when they were found.

The area has been wracked by bloody turf battles between the Gulf drug cartel and their one-time allies, the Zetas drug gang.

In May, authorities discovered 55 bodies in an abandoned mine near Taxco, a colonial-era city south of Mexico City that is popular with international tourists.

In July, investigators found 51 corpses in two days of digging in a field near a trash dump outside the northern city of Monterrey. Many of those found were believed to have been rival traffickers. But cartels often dispose of the bodies of kidnap victims in such dumping grounds.

More than 28,000 people have been killed in violence tied to Mexico's drug war since the offensive began.

Tab For 'War On Terrorism' Tops $1 Trillion

The United States has spent more than $1 trillion on wars since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, a recently released Congressional report says. Adjusting for inflation, the outlays for conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world make the "war on terrorism" second only to World War II.
The report "Cost of Major U.S. Wars" by the Congressional Research Service attempts to compare war costs over a more than 230-year period -- from the American Revolution to the current day -- noting the difficulties associated with such a task.
Since the the 9/11 terror attacks, the United States has spent an estimated $1.15 trillion. World War II cost $4.1 trillion when converted to current dollars, although the tab in the 1940s was $296 billion.
CNN - World War II consumed a massive 36 percent of America's gross domestic product -- a broad measurement of the country's economic output. The post-9/11 cost of the conflicts is about 1 percent of GDP.
Comparisons of costs of wars over a 230-year period, however, are inherently problematic, the report says.
"One problem is how to separate costs of military operations from costs of forces in peacetime. In recent years, the DOD (Department of Defense) has tried to identify the additional 'incremental' expenses of engaging in military operations, over and above the costs of maintaining standing military forces."
"Figures are problematic, as well, because of difficulties in comparing prices from one vastly different era to another," according to the report. "Perhaps a more significant problem is that wars appear more expensive over time as the sophistication and cost of technology advances, both for military and for civilian activities."
The costs associated with the "war on terrorism" could still go much higher.

A Congressional Budget Office estimate from 2007 said the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could total $2.4 trillion by 2017, more than double the current amount.

Obama 'Dither" On Troop Levels In Afghanistan And Votes Present

The U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry in Afghanistan who is a influential adviser to President Obama has questioned the wisdom of sending any troops to Afghanistan because the Afghan political situation is unstable. Ambassador Eikenberry and Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton has serious concerns about Afghanistan corruption, poor governance and absence of rule of law within the country. President Obama does not plan to accept any of Afghanistan war options presented by his National Security Team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. Troops can would turn over responsibility to the Afghan Government, A senior government official said Wednesday. The New York Times and MSNBC actually knows President Obama decision before he, has his next National Security Meeting. The President is not convinced yet that you can do a lasting counterinsurgency if there is no one to hand it off to". Therefore, I can only assume that President Obama is leaning toward a benchmark system that by which reducing corruption in the Afghan government and training the Afghan army will determine how many troops are deployed. The President is making a big mistake if he, uses this strategy because, this a "Black and White" decision that has to be made with conviction. President Obama should give Gen. McChrystal the 40,000 troops to help bring stability to Afghanistan or bring all the troops home within a year. The President is starting to sound like General Obama and making political decision on how it will effect his popularity in the left-wing of the Democratic Party. President Obama told every American that Afghanistan was a "War Of Necessity" but with the pressure from the left-wing of the Democratic Party it has become, a obstacle in the way of bringing Socialism to America. It is only a matter of time before Obama humiliates United States Military and waves the "White Flag" in Afghanistan. Welcome To ObamAmerica.

Taliban Video Shows Captured U.S. Solider.

The American solider who went missing on June 30 from his base in Eastern Afghanistan and was later confirmed captured, appeared on a posted video on Saturday to a web site by the Taliban. Two U. S. defense officials confirmed to the Associated Press that the man in the video is a captured solider. The video provides the first glimpse the public has had of the missing solider. The solider is shown in a 28 minutes video with his head shaved and the start of a beard. He is sitting in a and dressed in a nondescript, gray outfit. Early in the video one of his captors holds the solders dog tag up to the camera. His name and ID are clearly visible. He is shown eating at one point and sitting crossed legged. The solider who ID has not been released by the Pentagon pending notification of Congress and his family, says his name and his hometown, which is was released Saturday on a Web site pointed out by the Taliban. The solider said, the date was July 14. He said he, was captured when lagging behind on a patrol. He is interviewed in English his captors and he is asked his views on the war, which he calls extremely hard, his desire to learn more about Islam and the morale of American solders, which he said was low. Asked How he was doing, solider said in the video. Well I am scared, I won't be able to go home. It is very unnerving to be a prisoner. He begins to answer questions in a sober voice, occasionally facing the camera looking down and sometimes looking at the questionnaire on his left. He was prompted by his interrogators to give a message to the American people. To my fellow Americans who have loved ones over here, you have the power to make our government bring them home he said. Please, please bring us home so that we can be back where we belong and not over here, wasting our time and our precious lives that we could be using back in our country. Please bring us home. It is America and American people who have that power. On Saturday U.S. military officials in Kabul Col. Greg Julian, said the U.S. was doing everything we can tho return him safely. Julian and said, U. S. Troops had distributed flyer's in the area where the solider disappeared. One of them asked for information on the missing solider and offered a 25,000 reward for his return. The other said please return our solider safely or "we will hunt you" according to Julian. It seems like the Taliban is not following the Geneva Convention by showing pictures or videos of captured solders. If they will not play by the so-called rules of international warfare. Vice President Cheney was right to try and kill as many Taliban and Al- Qaedea members with CIA trained assassins. I will not show the picture of a "American Hero" who is being held captive a bunch Islamic Fascist Thugs. They will not use my blog for there terrorist propaganda purposes to destroy America.