I personally want to stop writing and crawl back into the hole I found myself in over a year ago before becoming politically involved.  This just keeps getting worse by the minute.  Everyday there is something new occurring and some story being reported that seems worse than the last…

The Obama administration is granting Miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan.  This is simply ludicrous!  Obama wants to allow FOREIGN terrorists US constitutional rights!?  These same terrorists who want to destroy our military, the West and Israel!?  My brain is hemorrhaging trying to comprehend this idiocy.

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal — read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today — foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they’re reading them their rights — Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI specialagent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

Global justice? Global justice? The law of the land, the constitution, is no longer valid for liberals.  The document that has given us the greatest country on Earth is apparently obsolete.  Quite frankly, if liberals and anyone else for that matter, do not like America, then by all means, please move elsewhere and quit whining! I’ve lived abroad, and if anything, it makes one appreciate America even more…

This is a clear message to the troops – don’t defend America and if you do happen to defend Her, don’t take any prisoners just kill them all on the spot do what the islamo-fascists do and video tape a beheading. (I’m sure that will really improve our image abroad and help the problem in the Middle East).  The liberals with the body count signs in their front yards from Iraq and Afghanistan will have to update regularly, since these actions are bound to cost more lives.

Does this also mean that any Gitmo detainees who are tried in court and were not read Miranda rights (which none of them were) would be released into the US immediately?  Would there be a statute of limitations that would stipulate no detainees arrested prior to this new policy will qualify?  If the former occurs then the body counting liberals should also create a sign for unarmed, innocent, American citizens who were killed by Obama’s naivete.

What is even more interesting is the fact that Obama completely flip flopped on this issue, when back in 2003 he opposed giving Miranda rights to foreign terrorists.  It’s interesting to see those who can sell out their principles for political expedience.  It’s the real ideologues who don’t have an issue with checking their values at the door if it will win them votes.

Juxtapose that with Governor Palin’s remarks at the RNC convention last year (as C4P has reported, it was another “I told ya so moment”)… I’m so glad we dodged the bullet on Palin last election/sarc!

Thank God for JaNo’s Overseas Contingency Operation… LOL!

Share on Facebook

Obama has continued to state that he was going to pull out of Iraq, that he did not believe in “dumb” wars. He also stated that he was opposed to the surge in 2007 and thought it would make things worse, but in 2008 stated that he was for the surge. Obama said he had a plan to get the troops out of Iraq by March 2008 – that obviously did not happen – but he said he had a plan that would then get them out some time in 2009.

New reports from the White House state that Obama will plan to keep the troops in Iraq for another year until August 2010 - and there is now an agreement with Iraqi’s that state all troops must be gone by 2011.  Will we hear the anti-war crowd who voted for Obama under the impression that he was anti-war or at least anti-Iraqi Freedom?  At least those women in Code Pink who I disagree with stand by their principles along with Cindy Sheehan who are in an uproar over this.  They are radical but at least they aren’t hypocrites when it comes to their stances.

Obama has voted continuously for funding for both Afghanistan and Iraq. So how can he be against a war and vote to continue funding it?

Obama continues to flip-flop on all of his funding, war and defense positions.

He is requesting an additional $83.4 billion for BOTH wars. And here is his voting record on war funding:

_May 2005: Congress approved an $82 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international anti-terrorism efforts. Obama voted yes.
_June 2006: Congress cleared a $94.5 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide aid to hurricane victims. Obama voted yes.

_September 2006: Congress cleared a $448 billion Pentagon funding bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama voted yes.

_April 2007: Congress cleared a $124 billion spending bill that provided $90 billion for war costs but mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Obama voted yes, but President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation.

_May 2007: Congress approved a roughly $100 billion spending measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic projects, including hurricane relief. Obama voted no.

_December 2007: Congress cleared a $555 billion catchall spending bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did not vote.

_June 2008: Congress approved a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs as well as provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and emergency relief for the flood-ravaged Midwest. Obama voted yes.

Hypocrite – I think so!

Share on Facebook

This is just plain dumb!  You don’t run a company, a state, a city, a town or the U.S. by polling and popularity – it will bite you in the A$$.

The problem I see with polling so often as the article actually indicates is that you will flip-flop on way too many issues and will never stand by principles.  People’s minds change all the time depending on the times and whatever it is they may be going through.  For example, I had a friend sign up for E-harmony, and he took that survey they require you to fill out; he took it twice.  Each survey result was incredibly different because, he had a different mindset and mood each time he took the survey.  Same thing goes for these polls that are conducted by Rasmussen, Zogby etc. 

It’s good to know what the public is thinking but how can you ever be trusted by anyone if you never stand strong on your principles and always change your mind depending on other people’s moods.  That seems pretty empty and shallow to me. 

As President Barack Obama works to sell the American people on a sweeping agenda of domestic spending and policy changes, he’s relying on three men who have gone through neither Senate confirmation nor cable news spin cycles.

Data from pollsters Joel Benenson and Paul Harstad has become increasingly important to shaping the White House’s message as the crucial battle over the president’s budget intensifies.

“The pace [of polling] is picking up,” said one source familiar with the data.

In addition, David Binder, a San Francisco-based focus group expert, also has been traveling the country taking the national temperature on issues like energy and health care, others close to the White House said.

Most people I know, Democrat or otherwise, are not keen on the energy push and health care push at this point in time when there are still so many uknowns with the economy.  Most Republicans are against those agenda items so you almost have to have more than 50% not fond of that idea currently… however, Obama is still pushing this as an agenda item so how can this be the true temperature of the country?

Presidents have long pooh-poohed polls while privately conducting them. Jimmy Carter had Patrick Caddell, Reagan had Dick Wirthlin, and Bill Clinton relied on Mark Penn for weekly, personal briefings on the numbers.

Polling worked so well for Jimmy Carter didn’t it?

George W. Bush, reacting against Clinton’s perceived reliance on polls, sharply cut back the practice, according to spending tallies. His main pollster was the no-profile Jan van Lohuizen, but Karl Rove still conducted six major surveys a year, a senior Bush White House staffer said, and employed an aide to pore over the growing pile of publicly available data.

Obama, too, has denounced polling, promising in one high-profile Iowa speech to lead “not by polls, but by principle,” even though he employed six campaign pollsters.

Kinda like I was saying above…

Obama, early indications suggest, combines elements of the Clinton and Bush models. He is polling more than Bush – a bit less than once a week for most of his young term, two people involved said.

 So now it’s ok to implement old Bush models?  What about the change?  All he has done is tweaked the way in which Bush polled and the frequency of the polling.

Elements of Obama’s approach bear the hallmarks of message testing, like the introduction of the words “recovery” and “reinvestment” to rebrand the “stimulus” package, and aides said the polling has focused almost entirely on selling policy, not on measuring the president’s personal appeal.

A source familiar with the data said a central insight of more recent polling had been that Americans see no distinction between the budget and the popular spending measures that preceded it, and that the key to selling the budget has been to portray it as part of the “recovery” measures.

I’m sorry but if you really believe that a budget is part of the nation’s recovery you have a lot to learn and can find your picture next to the word gullible in the dictionary.  Obama’s strategy, however, is clever, by polling hot button words – I will give him that.  But again, actions speak louder than words.

And here is where I see the problem.  Does a good manager delegate and not micromanage?  Yes, of course, but it’s one thing to delegate and meet and discuss the details or at worst at the top level,  than not review the work of your subordinate and trust that they instinctively know what is best. 

But Obama, though polling regularly, is no Clinton either. The 42nd president studied the polls from Penn and his partners Doug Schoenpolls with “hypnotic intensity,” the Washington Post once wrote. Obama leaves political guru David Axelrod to sift through the results.

Indeed, the polling arrangement offers a glimpse into the power dynamics of the Obama White House. Axelrod convenes a Wednesday political meeting and is in regular contact with the pollsters, but the pollsters don’t brief Obama directly.

Internally, they bolster Axelrod’s power rather than challenging it.

“Axelrod digests all the polling,” said another Democrat who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House doesn’t want to call attention to its polling.

That’s giving Axelrod a whole lot of power and do we know if he is competent enough to actually follow through on the poll results?  Campaign polling is completely different than on-the-job polling based on actions and real-life work experience. 

The White House doesn’t want to call attention to its polling, much like it doesn’t want to call attention to Obama’s dire need for a teleprompter.

Share on Facebook