SUA Sends Assistance to Chris Wallace, Shepherd Smith and CNN


The U.S. Navy Drone surveying the ocean. Looking for the NextWave. Wu Hu!

Hey Wray let’s make it easy fore U. CTO EE. It’s so much more than the Tsin Tsin Road.

SMILE! Find Judge Advocate. Find Affirmed.


“Everybody’s gone surf in’…Surf in’ USA…”

CNN: Two Fox News hosts question Trump’s comments about Iran: ‘This just doesn’t add up’.

ANSWER IS: Shure it does.

And the $240 million dollar bill which includes all the upgrades needs to go to…WHO knows…

“Poor Shep and Chris. They walked right into it. Such a thing. GO figure. &.”
– The Shark and Sparky the Clown

Trump Hits FOX News at PA Rally: “Something Very Strange Is Going On”

– Donald Trump, President of The United States of America

Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Wray…This is your Fools Brought In fore a reason…still Not Sure Dunno.

It is truly amazing when a significant piece of intel given to DHS, the FBI, and the Intel community, and after nothing was done, it winds up on a jihadi website and in perfect english. How could it be…WHO knows…Now back to that airplane hanger at Ft. Hood. U.O.

What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?

SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.

 

By Jackie WattlesCNN Business

New York (CNN)Fox News hosts Chris Wallace and Shep Smith challenged President Donald Trump’s comments about when and why he decided to call off a strike against Iran.

Trump said Friday that the military was “cocked and loaded” to fire on Iran in retaliation for shooting down a US drone earlier this week. But he reversed course “10 minutes before the strike” when he learned 150 people could die in the attack, the president said in a series of tweets.
Smith said Fox News’ reporting found that Trump would have been given a casualty estimate at a briefing hours before that.
“Something’s wrong there,” Smith said about the president’s comments.
Smith then questioned Trump’s decision to “tweet out the whole thought process of American foreign policy and intervention.”
“That’s an observation,” he added. “Not a critique.”
Trump has a cozy relationship with Fox News. He’s hired a number of former employees from the network to posts within his administration.
The president also reportedly corresponds directly with Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, conservative firebrands who currently host evening programs that routinely praise the president.
Smith, who hosts daytime news coverage, and Wallace, the anchor of Fox News Sunday, have stood apart from Fox’s opinion-oriented colleagues. Smith and Wallace have previously questioned or criticized actions by Trump or his administration.

 

Article

How The U.S. Could Respond After Iran Shoots Down A $240 Million U.S. Drone

By Mark Cancian

Tensions continue to escalate in the Persian Gulf as the Iranians down one U.S. drone, shoot at another and, likely, sponsor attacks on tankers and a Saudi airport. Let’s take a look at the most recent incidents and what they might mean for the future. Will there be a war?

What happened? Early Thursday the Iranians used a surface to air missile to shoot down a U.S. drone just outside the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranians posted a video that purported to show the shootdown, and the United States acknowledged that it had lost a Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drone (BAMS-D). The Iranians claimed it was in their territorial airspace while the United States claimed it was in international airspace. Under international law, it’s a critical question, and, eventually, there will be an answer. The United States will likely salvage the wreckage, as it has with recent aircraft crashes, and the location will show where the drone actually was. However, that will take many weeks and likely be of historical interest, rather than helpful in resolving the current crisis.

What is this BAMS-D drone? This is a Navy prototype version of the Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk. The Navy’s fully developed version is called the MQ-4C Triton and is just entering production. These are very large unmanned aircraft. The wingspan is 132 feet, comparable to a civilian airliner. (For comparison, a Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 feet.) The drone is designed for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), the Pentagon term meaning that it has sensors to find things on the earth surface. The Navy’s version focuses on the sea, whereas the Air Force version focuses on land. Here’s how DOD describes the Navy version: “The MQ-4C will provide the Navy with a persistent maritime ISR capability. Mission systems include inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, Electro-optical/Infra-red Full Motion Video, maritime moving target detection, Electronic Support Measures, Automatic Identification System, a basic communications relay capability, and Link-16.” Because of their size, BAMS-D and Triton are land based.

BAMS-D is not stealthy, is unarmed, flies relatively slowly, and has essentially no defensive systems. Its only defense is to fly high, at 60,000 feet. Because of its vulnerability, it is not designed to operate in a contested area. Its great advantage is that it can fly for over 32 hours continuously, far longer than any human crew could endure.

So, what was it doing there? Although the Pentagon has not stated what the mission was, one presumes that it was watching for more tanker attacks. Four ships were attacked in May and two more last week. If the U.S. could catch whoever was doing the attacks, presumedly Iran, then it might be able to thwart future attacks and have the evidence needed to convince domestic and international audiences of Iran’s culpability.

Does this thing really cost $240 million? Yes…and no. Because DOD weapons are custom-built, they don’t have price tags like equipment does in the civilian world. Systems have many possible costs depending on what is included and what the number is used for. Thus, different commentators have cited different costs for this aircraft, for example, $120 million or $180 million.

Since BAMS-D is a version of the Air Force RQ-4, we can use the RQ-4’s official acquisition report, called the Selected Acquisition Report, to calculate a cost for BAMS-D. This report shows an average procurement cost over the whole program of $122 million in FY 2015 dollars or about $130 million in FY 2019 dollars. That excludes the research and development costs, which are mostly sunk at the beginning of the program. If those were included, the cost per aircraft would increase to about $240 million (FY 2019 dollars). To make things even more complicated, there is something called the “flyaway cost,” which is the cost of a system coming out of the factory without some of the support elements in the “procurement” cost. The “flyaway cost” of a new MQ-4C replacement for the lost BAMS-D is a bargain, at $102 million (FY 2019 dollars).

No matter which cost you pick, however, this was an expensive system. It is a very large aircraft with many sophisticated sensors on it.

What were these other attacks? Apparently, Iranians also shot at another drone last week, an MQ-9 Reaper (replacement for the legendary MQ-1 Predator), but missed. That it missed is likely because Reapers are much smaller than the MQ-4C and thus harder to hit. They are also much less expensive, costing about $30 million. The Reaper drone, like the MQ-4C that was shot down, was likely looking for perpetrators of the tanker attacks and was probably the source of the video about Iranians removing mines from the attacked tankers.

Also last week a group of Iranian back Yemeni rebels attacked a Saudi airport with cruise missiles, one of a series of such attacks. The bottom line is that these drone and tanker attacks are not isolated incidents but part of the campaign by Iran to put pressure on its major enemies, the United States and Saudi Arabia, and, indirectly, on the Europeans, Japanese and others to get relief from U.S. sanctions.

What’s going to happen next? The Iranians are signaling that they will not accept the U.S. imposed sanctions passively. They are striking back as they always have: asymmetrically and in the “gray zone.” Asymmetrically means they are not meeting U.S. strength head-on and the gray zone means they are maneuvering in the space between war and peace. Likely, the Iranians will continue to initiate “incidents.” By maintaining some deniability and not injuring human beings, the Iranians have been very clever in keeping these incidents below the level where the United States would respond with force.

At some point, the Iranians may cross these lines either by injuring an American or by being caught red-handed in conducting an attack. Then, the United States would almost certainly respond with force. This happened in the 1980s when the United States caught the Iranians laying sea mines in the Persian Gulf and retaliated by sinking half of the Iranian Navy.

The U.S. has the capability in theater now to conduct a retaliatory strike, likely against the air defense battery that shot down the drone. According to the New York Times, an attack on Iranian radar and missile batteries was prepared for Thursday, but the operation was cancelled. Strikes could also be directed against Iranian naval capabilities that might have carried out the tanker attacks. The U.S. does not have enough assets in theater to conduct an extended air-naval campaign, even with the additional thousand troops being sent. It certainly does not have the capability to conduct any ground campaign against Iran.

More likely, however, is something non-kinetic. The president is reluctant to get into a shooting war, having campaigned against such involvements. Instead, the United States might take some covert action like the cyber-attack that was allegedly recently conducted against Russia. It might start escorting ships and aircraft through the Straits of Hormuz. The NATO allies and Japan might be willing to support such an action.

Unfortunately, the situation is not stable. Most likely, there will be additional incidents within a week with each carrying the risk of escalation. Last August, I wrote a piece looking at indicators of a possible conflict (Is The US Going To War With Iran? Five Indicators To Watch For). Three have occurred (“increased naval activity,” “Iranian complaints about reconnaissance flights,” and “increased security at regional U.S. bases”).

Article

China hacked US Army transport orgs TWENTY TIMES in ONE YEAR

FBI et al knew of nine hacks – but didn’t tell TRANSCOM

Article

 

U.S. Attacks Iran With Cyber Not Missiles — A Game Changer, Not A Backtrack

Article

From 2014 and earlier…OOOPS…It is re levant.

China targets own operating system to take on likes of Microsoft, Google


Article

“I think we missed the BAMS-D thing and finding Omar…”

 

Now back to MAR-A-LAG-O. All along the watchtower. It’s not the Hawaiian but it will do.

 

Adm. Lyons – Can you tell whose side Obama is on?

Editor’s Note – When it comes to National Security we really should be listening to those that are experienced military advisors, not political advisors pretending to be National Security advisors.

Obama’s distorted strategy

The president soothes anti-Western grievances at great cost

Washington Times

While France remains in a state of shock over the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, they are also most likely confused and disappointed over President Obama’s declaration that there will be no fundamental change to his current policy and strategy to “now contain and defeat ISIS.”

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey November 12th.

During his Nov. 12 remarks in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Obama appeared to be petulant and arrogant when responding to legitimate reporter’s questions, perhaps a “crack” in the carefully constructed veneer that has concealed his true character and now has been exposed.

However, on Nov. 17, The New York Times editorial board quickly came to the rescue by declaring that Mr. Obama “hit the right tone” in his remarks.

But his remarks should leave no doubt that he has a far-reaching strategy. That strategy is embedded in his declaration to fundamentally transform America. Actually, the way we are restricting our operations in the Middle East today has its roots in America’s transformation.

Those who say the administration is incompetent — are wrong. With the complicity of our congressional leadership and the mainstream media, the administration has executed their strategy brilliantly.

In order to understand Mr. Obama’s strategy, you first have to understand the threat that has been deliberately distorted. When President Erdogan of Turkey was prime minister, he said it best — Islam is Islam. There are no modifiers, such as violent extremism.
Democracy is the train we ride to achieve our ultimate objective, Mr. Erdogan implied, which is world domination. It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.

No matter how many times “progressives” try to rationalize or accommodate perceived Muslim grievances, the fact remains that Islam has been involved in a struggle for world domination for over 1,400 years.

• James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. He is now a member of the Legacy National Security Advisory Group with MG Vallely

What the world witnessed in Paris, and certainly here in America on Sept. 11, 2001, was a continuing clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian values of the West.

As the noted historian Samuel P. Huntington implied, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western values and cultures.

There can be no peace or co-existence between Islam and non-Islamic societies or their political institutions. Clearly, there must be a reformation of Islam.

Once the Islamic threat has been exposed and understood, then any thinking American should be able to grasp Mr. Obama’s strategy. It is anti-American; anti-Western; but pro-Islamic; pro-Iranian; and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.

This raises the question: Why would an American president with his country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, who professes to be a Christian, embrace Islam? Or for that matter, why would an American president embrace Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with the United States for over 35 years? They have caused the loss of thousands of American civilians and military lives.

Also, why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, whose creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and replace our Constitution with seventh century Shariah law? They have been able to penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. Consequently, they have had a major impact on our foreign and domestic policies as well as the way our military is restricted on fighting our wars.

It is not possible to list all of President Obama’s executive orders and policies that have imposed undue restraints on our military forces and first responders, but illustrative of those are the following:

  • The unilateral disarmament of our military forces. This makes no sense when we are being challenged throughout the world.
  • Compounding the unilateral disarmament issue is the social engineering that has been forced on our military to satisfy an ill-advised domestic agenda. It has adversely impacted the military’s moral fiber, unit cohesiveness, integrity and most importantly the “will to win.”
  • The purging of all our military training manuals that links Islam with terrorism. Our forces are being denied key information that properly defines the threat.
  • Emasculation of our military capabilities by imposing highly restricted Rules of Engagement. It makes our military look ineffective.
  • Curtailment of Christianity and its symbols in our military, e.g., restricting the display of the Bible.
  • Making our military forces in the Middle East either ignore or submit to the atrocities authorized by Shariah law, tribal customs and traditions, e.g. wife beating, stoning, sodomizing young boys.
  • Unfettered immigration with open borders, plus seeding Muslim immigrants throughout the country.
  • Shifting sides in the Global War on Terror by supporting al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias, and facilitating the removal of all vestiges of secular rulers who were in fact our allies in the war on terror.

When President Obama gave his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni doctrine for over 1,000 years, he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that said it all.

Again, when he spoke at the U.N. on Sept. 25, 2012, after the Benghazi tragedy and stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” — case closed. Andy McCarthy, author and National Review columnist, made a compelling case for Mr. Obama’s impeachment in his book, “Faithless Execution.”

Clearly, the president has exposed where he stands when the issue is Islam versus our Judeo-Christian heritage. Certainly, the case is there to be made for his removal from office for his illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous acts.


James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

And You Think Trump Is Going To Destroy The Republican Party?

Editor’s Note – It’s a bizarre thing existing in a Netherworld where you neither support nor despise Republican frontrunner Donald Trump.

The benefits of this new media world of ours, this awe-inspiring world of social media and instant online publishing, far outweigh the negatives.

One obvious negative is that our politics are becoming a bit more shrill, sometimes to the point where if you haven’t yet taken a side, one will be assigned to you.

An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

By Sundance – The Last Refuge

A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.  Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

goldberg-headshot

While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.

The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies.

It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber.

I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation.

Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred.  Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”.

Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.

Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

From your own writing:

[…]  If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.  (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto?  Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people.  Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option.  While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.

Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable.  Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.

Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities.  I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?  A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads?  Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel.  The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget.  We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test?

Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle?  You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration.  Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013?  When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”.  Remember that?  We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign.   To teach us a lesson?  Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals.

Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say.  The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

evil obama

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners)  with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs.

Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?   All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”.

Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers?  This is a conservative position now?  A need to “tax the poor”?  Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy?  This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

mcconnell-and-boehner

 

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?

Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?

Seriously?

Iraq War Veterans Disagree Mr. Obama – Bad Deal!

Editor’s Note – StandUpAmericaUS.org (SUA) stands by all veterans and especially the “Veterans Against the Deal” and we agree with their message.

Our Chairman and Founder, MG Paul Vallely has been very out spoken on the Iranian Deal and was one of the speakers at the ‘Stop Iran Rally’ in Times Square, NYC and lauds this fine group of heroes.

We stand with SSgt. Robert Bartlett and the veterans always!

The real cost of this deal will be lives lost through out the world and future generations of our warriors will be called upon to fix Obama’s mistakes undoubtedly. Obama longs for a legacy, he may just get that, as history will surely not reflect well upon him, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.Veterans Against the DealObamaRouhani

All three began on this quest long before originally known, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, something all voters need to know in this campaign season.

Releasing billions of dollars to Iran is is insane; this deal is insane!

This money will be used to financially support terrorists to attack the United States, Israel, and whomever they find themselves at fault with as Iran spreads their tentacles across the globe beyond the wide scope already in play.

Iran’s Mullah’s haven’t changed and never will, and Obama and Kerry negotiated with terrorists more than a few times, to the detriment of humanity. Iran means what they say – “Death to America.”

Iraq Vets Take On Obama Over Iran Deal

By Josh Rogin – Bloomberg View

A group of Iraq war veterans is launching a million-dollar effort to oppose President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, trying to counter the president’s argument that those who are against the deal are in favor of war.

Obama has said recently that there are only two camps: those who support the deal versus those who would prefer a bloody and costly war like the conflict in Iraq. The new ad campaign complicates that, asserting that the deal itself will lead to more war. And the voices putting forth that case do not prefer war; they are soldiers who have had enough of it.

Veterans Against the Deal

The group, Veterans Against the Deal, was founded last month as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and it does not disclose its donors. Its national campaign starts today, including television ads in states whose members of Congress are undecided on the Iran deal. Lawmakers will vote on it in September.

The first of the group’s videos features retired staff sergeant Robert Bartlett, who was badly injured by an Iranian bomb while serving in Iraq in 2005.

“Every politician who is involved in this will be held accountable, they will have blood on their hands,” he says in the ad. “A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism. What do you think they are going to do when they get more money?”

%CODE%

The first ad will go up in Montana, aimed at Democratic Senator Jon Tester. Subsequent ads will air in North Dakota, West Virginia and elsewhere. The group will also send veterans to speak at events in key states.

“We are going to challenge those people who are on the fence,” Executive Director Michael Pregent, a former intelligence adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno who served in Iraq, told me. “Our main argument is that veterans know Iran better than Washington, D.C., does.

You’ve got a lot of veterans out there who are pretty upset about this, so we are looking to capture their voices and make sure they are heard.”

The campaign does not actually dwell on the nuclear issue, but on a more immediate threat: When Iran receives up to $100 billion of its frozen assets as part of sanctions relief, it could use that money to increase its nefarious activities all over the region.

Top officials including Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have testified that Iran is likely to use at least some of this cash to fund violence in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

According to Dempsey, Iran was directly responsible for the deaths of at least 500 American service members during the Iraq war.

The Obama administration has said that the nuclear deal is separate and distinct from Iran’s regional mischief and officials are not counting on any positive change in Iran’s behavior abroad — although as recently as this morning, Obama has said he hopes that Iran might moderate its behavior.

The president has also said most of the money is likely to go toward fixing the Iranian economy.

At his speech at American University last week, the president said those opposed to Iran deal were the same people who supported going to war in Iraq in 2003 — implying that deal opponents are hoping for a similar approach to Iran.

He also said Iranian hardliners were making common cause with Congressional opponents, leading top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to call on the president to tone down his rhetoric when accusing deal opponents of being pro-war.

Pregent said his campaign will point out that U.S. soldiers who were victims of Iranian bombs aren’t inclined to ally with Iranian hardliners. The group has recruited U.S. service members who were victims of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, when 241 U.S. troops were killed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces.

Their efforts will also feature parents and children of service members who were killed in the war in Iraq.

“Do they fall into the category of those aligned with the hardliners in Iran,” Pregent asked, “because they oppose this deal?”

Pregent told me that the group’s donors include Democrats, Republicans and veterans who oppose the deal.

The board of the group includes Pregent, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Brian Sanchez, retired Marine Corps Col. Stephen Robb, and Iraq war veteran Pete Hegseth, the chairman of the group Concerned Veterans for America. That group was financed by the Koch brothers’ donor network.

“We don’t want to make this a partisan issue,” Pregent said. “We’ll have Democratic vets who voted for Obama participating in this as well.”

He said the veterans and families who are involved are motivated only by their own experiences and views.

“These guys want to be heard. They know this enemy. They have a constant reminder of permanent loss because of Iran,” he said.

“If someone said to me, ‘Aren’t you exploiting these veterans and families?’ I would say, ‘No, aren’t you ignoring these veterans and families?’”

Retired Gen. Mike Flynn, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014, is an adviser to the group.

He said soldiers by and large weren’t advocates of the war in Iraq, but were simply called on to serve and did their duty. But now, many of those individuals are veterans, and they want to have a say.

“They have a right and a responsibility to speak up,” Flynn said.

This new campaign pales in size and scope to some of the other efforts to influence the debate over the Iran deal. AIPAC has raised tens of millions to oppose the deal, and pro-deal lobbying groups have raised several million to convince lawmakers to support the pact.

But those efforts have been largely based on technical arguments; this one could be uniquely powerful because it puts a human face on the issue.

President Obama keeps trying to frame lawmakers’ decision as war without the deal or peace with it. The new ads will make that harder to do, showing veterans who oppose the deal without supporting war — who in fact believe the deal will lead to more war, not less.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Obama and Kerry – Delusional and Insulting, 'Iran's Lawyers'

By Scott W. Winchell

Events concerning the Iran Deal revealed a new low in the Presidency of Obama, and his equally “delusional” Secretary of State, John Kerry. A speech Obama gave yesterday and an interview John Kerry also had this week both insult our intelligence and show how utterly contemptuous and naive each is – all for the ‘legacy from hell’.

This comes on the heels of a speech this week in which Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu “spoke on a conference call organized by the Jewish Federation of North America (JFNA)” regarding the deal:true-obama

“This deal will bring war,” Netanyahu warned. “It will spark a nuclear arms race in the region. And it would feed Iran’s terrorism and aggression that would make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all, far more likely.”

These are the words of a true world class leader, a man seeking to secure his people over his own ambitions as Obama proves to be in stark contrast in terms of leadership, trust, and class.

Here is what Obama said, igniting a fire storm for being so callous, so filled with haterd for anyone who would dare oppose him:

“I realize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to talks… Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those hardliners that are more satisfied with the status quo.”

“It’s those hardliners chanting “death to America” who’ve been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.” The audience applauded this disgusting statement. (Gateway Pundit)

…and the audience laughed and applauded? This is beneath contempt, and debases the office Obama holds.

%CODE%

Maybe Obama was also telling Netanyahu that he too was part of that “caucus.” But didn’t Obama say that 99% of the world was supporting the deal? Really? Stark delusional mania…we refuse to suspend all disbelief Mr. Obama.

Obama said: “If 99% of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say this will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does, it’s temporary then you should have some alternative.” (BBC)

You mean to tell us Mr. Obama that of the 193 nations in the UN, only 1.93 nations do not want this deal? What about Qatar, Israel, the UAE, Egypt – define for us “prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb” please, and explain that other fictitious number of 62 nations aiding in the fight against ISIS, that “JV team.”

The esteemed Charles Krauthammer summed it up so well last night:

On “The Kelly File” [last night], Charles Krauthammer said that President Obama comparing Republicans to Iranians chanting “death to America” is a new low for the president.

“It’s vintage Obama. The demonization of his opponents, the lumping them together with people chanting ‘death to America,’ I must say is a new low for the president,” Krauthammer said.

He added that it’s even worse how delusional Obama is by not seeing that the Iranian leaders and mullahs are the hardliners. “How can you negotiate if you have no conception of the real ideology and intentions of your enemy?” Krauthammer asked. (Fox News with video.)

Compounding that utter tripe was the swill Kerry was spewing earlier:

“[T]he United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point,” Kerry said.

Kerry’s argument confirms the extent to which the Obama administration has become “Iran’s lawyer”–defending Iran’s behavior, adopting its perspective on negotiations, and above all negotiating as if America needed a deal more than the regime.

Another example of defending the indefensible, and like Obama, completely ignores the protestations from the representatives of the people, from both sides of the aisle. Just who does Kerry and Obama represent – it sure isn’t America’s best interests? Where is their fealty to our constitution? But it gets worse:

khamenei-death-to-america

He warned that the “moderate” regime [sic] of Hassan Rouhani would fall if the deal were rejected, and be replaced by a more hard-line one (though it is difficult to point to any way in which Rouhani’s administration is less extremist and violent than its predecessors, except in its language on the global stage).

How could there be a “more hard-line one” Mr. Kerry? Was it not Rouhani who actually led one of those “death to America” rallies? We wonder if Mr. Kerry actually knows who Ayatollah Kamanei, the Supreme Leader is and how this administration has not learned that these evil ‘hard-liners” say what they believe and believe what they say.

History has proven that they tell us what they are going to do, and they do it! But then again, what great negotiators they have proven to be.

In layman’s terms, this is called “negotiating against yourself”–though some critics have begun to speculate openly that Obama wanted all along to boost one of America’s most determined enemies.

Even the liberal media is shaking its head over this lunacy as the interview progressed:

Goldberg, usually a reliable stenographer for an administration he supports, was skeptical of Kerry’s more far-fetched claims. When Kerry boasted that the Iran deal ” is as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets,” Goldberg pushed back. When Kerry claimed, falsely, that the U.S. intercepts weapons shipments to Hezbollah, Goldberg challenged him.John-Kerry-at-House-Olivier-Douliery-Getty-640x480

Kerry dismissed concerns–concerns once cited by Obama himself–that Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear weapon will shrink to near-zero after the deal expires in 10 or 15 years. The Secretary of State also cited Iran’s commitment to the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as proof that Iran would never build a nuclear weapon.

How delusional, morally corrupt, unconscionable, and reprehensible!

Bizarrely, Kerry described Iran’s threats of “death to Israel” as “a fundamental ideological confrontation” between the two, as if it were a disagreement of principle rather than an explicit threat to “wipe Israel off the map” (Goldberg fills in the last three words, since Kerry is almost unwilling to say them).

He also said that Iran’s cash windfall from sanctions relief would not help the Assad regime or regional terror groups much: “It’s not money that’s going to make a difference ultimately in what is happening,” Kerry told an evidently stunned Goldberg.  (Read the complete article at Breitbart)

Truly bizarre! Stunningly BIZARRE!

Our question is, where was Obama when in 2009 there was a popular uprising in Iran that soon turned bloody? These were the true moderates, reformists, the youth, the future, who begged Obama for aid, but no, Obama turned his back on them. So much for their future, Israel’s, and ours!

Once again, Obama and Kerry chose the enemies of Israel and America over those who could have toppled that terrorist regime in Tehran back in 2009. Had he aided the uprising, and ramped up sanctions instead of slow walking, or even opposing further sanctions in 2012, things would have been far different today.

Obama and Hillary Clinton did begrudgingly impose sanctions in 2009 and beyond, but always needing to be dragged kicking and screaming. They did relent and went along with massive pressure from a strangely bi-partisan Congress, but today’s rhetoric shows what their true intentions were all along.