U.S. troops in Afghanistan now have
far-reaching new protections against rogue killers among their Afghan
allies, including assigned "guardian angels" -- fellow
troops who will watch over them as they sleep. Marine Gen. John Allen,
the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, ordered the added protections
in recent weeks to guard against insider threats, according to a
senior military official. They come in the wake of 16 attacks
on U.S. and coalition forces by Afghans that now represent nearly
one-fifth of all combat deaths this year."
For what? Please, don't insult my
intelligence by sending me email they're there fighting for our
freedom. That carefully crafted "justification" long ago
wore out its place in history.
While the troops are there to protect the
opium poppy crops, a sick culture of death, and where pedophilia is
common in some regions, here's what their president, Hamid Karzai,
said as the flag draped coffins continue to arrive back on US.
The anger over the killing of their
civilians is totally understandable, but we really don't know what
happened with that soldier. It takes time to conduct an investigation.
In the meantime, you, me, our children and grand children will
continue to be buried in the debt, close to $2 BILLION borrowed
dollars a month, for the lunacy of staying in a country that doesn't
want us there. We will see more of this despite ramped up efforts for
our own to protect their own in a country we should never have invaded
and occupied to begin with:
WASHINGTON (AP) - "An Afghan soldier
shot to death a 22-year-old Marine at an outpost in southwestern
Afghanistan last month in a previously undisclosed case of apparent
Afghan treachery that marked at least the seventh killing of an
American military member by his supposed ally in the past six weeks,
Marine officials said. Lance Cpl. Edward J. Dycus of Greenville,
Miss., was shot in the back of the head on Feb. 1 while standing guard
at an Afghan-U.S. base in the Marja district of Helmand province."
In other words, he was murdered by a soldier serving the same country
we're occupying. Is it any wonder our soldiers are coming home and
killing themselves or suffering from such several mental trauma,
they'll never get better?
Absolute lunatics are running the White
House and infest the U.S. Congress for allowing those occupations to
continue even one more day. Yeah, go ahead and write your incumbent in
the Outlaw Congress; you'll get back the same boiler plate form letter
he/she's been sending out for nearly a decade. War is big business and
business is booming.
As for the 'deranged' U.S. soldier flipping
out and killing those 16 poor souls, Robert Fisk, a veteran of many
wars and outstanding journalist, had this to say:
"The Afghan narrative has been
curiously lobotomised - censored, even - by those who have been
trying to explain this appalling massacre in Kandahar. They remembered
the Koran burnings - when American troops in Bagram chucked Korans
on a bonfire - and the deaths of six Nato soldiers, two of them
Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn't forget -
and this applies to every single report on the latest killings - a
remarkable and highly significant statement from the US army's top
commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago.
Indeed, it was so unusual a statement that I clipped the report of
Allen's words from my morning paper and placed it inside my briefcase
for future reference.
"Allen told his men that "now is
not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in
Thursday's riots". They should, he said, "resist whatever
urge they might have to strike back" after an Afghan soldier
killed the two Americans. "There will be moments like this when
you're searching for the meaning of this loss," Allen continued.
"There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed
by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge,
now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission,
remember your discipline, remember who you are."
"Now this was an extraordinary plea to
come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell
his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to
"take vengeance" on the Afghans they are supposed to be
helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his
soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this
kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I
rather fear it has. Because - however much I dislike generals -
I've met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty
good idea of what's going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen
had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had
been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings - and
might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately -
in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing - to
pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday." Rest
"Just when you thought the government
couldn't possibly find another social justice program to blow taxpayer
money on, the Obama Administration is asking Congress for a whopping
$770 million to help developing countries with global climate change
initiatives. Here comes the best part. During Obama's presidency
American taxpayers have already doled out nearly $3 billion for this
preposterous cause, according to a new congressional report posted
this week by a think tank that publishes hard-to-find government
documents of public policy interest.
"The figures are tough to swallow for a
country that's $15.5 trillion in the red and counting. In fiscal year
2009 the administration got $323 million for the program-officially
known as Global Climate Change Initiative-and the figure nearly
tripled to $939 million in 2010. In 2011 it dropped slightly to $819
million and in 2012 it dipped a bit more to $773 million. Do the math.
That's more than $2.8 billion to save the developing world from the
presumed ills of global warming. That's downright outrageous! But it's
part of Obama's plan to categorize climate change as U.S. foreign
assistance so that more money can go to the cause and "core"
agencies-such as the Treasury and State Department- can
participate. In fact, last month Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
announced a new State Department coalition dedicated to the
There is ZERO authority for the outlaws in
the U.S. Congress to steal our money to give to any foreign country
for any reason, period. Usurper Hillary Clinton is an in your face one
world government advocate, but only Congress has control of the purse
strings. Both parties allow stealing the fruits of our labor year
after year after year and brain dead voters go to the ballot box and
reelect them every two years to the U.S. House and six years for the
unlawfully seated U.S. Senate. (Of course, electronic vote fraud,
voter registration and illegal aliens voting helps keep the betrayers
in office.) BILLIONS more borrowed dollars. More debt slapped on our
backs plus the interest.
"The Obama administration says it will
give $100 million in cash to Tunisia for short-term debt relief as the
North African country struggles to improve its economy after the
ouster of its long-time authoritarian leader last
Even if Obama had been
eligible and legally elected (which he wasn't and still isn't), no
where in Art. II, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution does it give a
sitting president the authority to steal from we the people to give
debt relief to any foreign country. Reaction from the Outlaw Congress
- especially those 'smaller government' Republicans who moan and grown
about big government? The silence is deafening. Business as usual as
they all violate their oath of office. $100 million dollars more debt
plus the interest.
"Wind farms in the Pacific Northwest --
built with government subsidies and maintained with tax credits for
every megawatt produced -- are now getting paid to shut down as the
federal agency charged with managing the region's electricity grid
says there's an oversupply of renewable power at certain times of the
First of all, Obama/Soetoro has no legal
authority to offer money to anyone even if he were a legitimate
president which he isn't. That stealing was announced by the
unconstitutional Department of Labor. Please remember what Joseph
Story, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, said in Commentaries on
the Constitution, 1833, because it is exactly what the framers of the
Constitution had in mind at the time this republic was
"Another not unimportant consideration
is that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must
be, principally employed upon external objects, such as
war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers and foreign commerce. In
its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to
introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse and
other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common
good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all
objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,
and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal
order, improvement and prosperity of the state."
If the state legislatures in the Union wish
to allocate money to help those released from prison after serving
their time, that is their right. If the citizens of a state don't want
their tax dollars spent on such programs, they make their voice heard.
That $20 million stolen from you and me, kissed and blessed by the
thieves in Congress will have to be borrowed. More debt plus the
Transcript, U.S. Supreme Court hearings on
the unconstitutional ObamaCare.
"Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
defended the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare today by arguing
that "It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and
spend" and concluding "It doesn't sound coercive to
"Kagan made her comments at today's
Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who
was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have
the federal health care law declared unconstitutional:
"Mr. Clement: "Mr. Chief Justice
and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act's
massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related
questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that
"Justice Kagan: "Mr. Clement, can
I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the
same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety
percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent
of the cost?"
"Clement: "Justice Kagan if
everything else in the statute remained the same I would be making the
exact same argument."
"Kagan: "The exact same argument
so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from
the federal government a matter of coercion?
"In other words, the federal government
is here saying: we're giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is
no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions
attached to it."
No where in Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S.
Constitution does it give the General Government the power or
authority to steal the fruits of your labor to pay for the neediest in
another state. We all pay state taxes (either a direct personal state
income tax or other taxes as here in Texas; we have no state income
tax) that fund health care coverage for several categories of people
in our own state. Here in Texas it costs my husband and I
roughly $600 a year to pay for someone else's medical coverage on top
of paying our own health care premiums on top of paying someone else's
medical bills through Medicare (which I will fight to stay out
of). How much are you paying in your state?
Then the thieves in the Outlaw Congress
steal more from us to pay down the debt they
created to borrow more from the central bank to "give"
back to the states hundreds of billions in Medicaid with "no
matching requirement!" Yeah, whoopie!. For once, Kagan actually
uttered the truth: boatloads of money to spend, spend,
But, it must not bother the herds because
they've been out there campaigning the past few months to get their
incumbent reelected to Congress by winning primaries. Why? I would
never vote for a Republican! Our family are Democrats because the
Democrats care for the working man! I will not vote for Democrats
because Republicans are fighting for smaller government! How's that
really worked out for you the past few DECADES?
A closed mind is a terrible thing. An
uneducated mind is a dangerous thing. Our republic is dying because
tens of millions of voters are so uneducated about the proper role of
government, they continue to work hard for their own destruction
regardless of which party they belong to. Sadly, they are taking all
of us over the cliff with them.The common mantra (BS) we always hear
during an election year is "reelect experience". We need so
and so's experience in Congress! In other words, don't vote for a
challenger in the primary against the incumbent. We need more of the
same! Isn't that what being a conservative is all about these days?
Conserving the same insanity by continuing to vote for the same
poltroon over good candidates who are not the anointed one of the
http://www.devvy.com. You may also sign up for her free email alerts.
This Site Served