Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

If Heel Slipping Destroys Your Shoes, Here’s Something For You To Try

April 11, 2014

I’m going to admit something: I’m a genetic freak.  In more ways than one, I’m sure.

That acknowledged, we’ll just deal with one of my tragic genetic mutations: the fact that while the ball of my foot is fairly wide, it turns out that my heel is fairly narrow.

That means, of course, that I’ve got to buy wide shoes to fit the ball of my foot, but wide shoes and narrow heels don’t go together so well.

So the result is that my heel slips in my shoes as I’m walking.

For whatever reason, heel slippage has generally not caused me discomfort in my shoes and boots.   And I usually don’t end up with a lot of blisters.

What I end up with is destroyed shoes, as the inside lining gets shredded by my slipping heel.

It was a bad enough problem that I pretty much started wearing all-leather shoes and boots several years ago.  And I’m not just talking about “all leather” on the outside, but on the INSIDE of the shoe/boot as well.  That way, my heel could slip to its little heel-heart’s content, and there was something substantial to rub against rather than that comfy spongy fabric crap they pad the inside of most shoes and boots with these days.

Everything seemed good.

But yet another genetic defect began to rear its ugly, malformed little head: it turned out that I didn’t have the best arches in the world.  Oh, and I had a hammer toe.  Probably a bunch of other freaky foot things as well, given the fact that my left foot is a little longer but slightly more narrow versus my right foot which is a little shorter but slightly wider.

Do you know how difficult it is to buy all-leather boots with good arch support?  Try your glass slipper on in size “impossible” there, Cinderella.

I had to have a custom orthotic.

Now, in the dark ages they would have just left me out to die or euthanized me in some other manner.  But in these humane times they give freaks like me orthotics so we can walk around with the normal humans – you know, the people who AREN’T freaks.

Anyway, my orthotician told me I needed to start wearing boots with good arch support for my walks.  He suggested Hi Techs.

But it turned out that EVERY Hi Tech boot I saw had the same spongy, cushy lining.  Which my slipping heels tore up and destroyed in a matter of two weeks or less.

I tried those heel slippage inserts that have the adhesive and stick inside the heel of your boot.  They lasted about a day or two.

Normal people don’t have to live like this, you know.  Just us abby normal freaks.

I finally figured out a trick that has worked seriously well for me.  And it only cost about sixty or seventy cents for enough material to last for several months.

What you do is go to a fabric store.  I went to the fabric section of Wal-Mart.  And you get the most leather-like fabric material that they have (leather would be GREAT, but it’s hard to find).

Have them cut a yard of fabric between 2-3″ wide.  Like I said, it costs about seventy cents.  By making it 2-3″ inches wide, you make it wide enough to stick in the back of your shoe where your heel rubs.

What you’re going to do is cut off a section of that fabric and stick it under your insole or orthotic to hold it down.  I cut it so I can have about 5″ under the insole/orthotic.  It won’t slip out that way as you’re walking.

And then leave it just long enough to stick out slightly over the top of your heel.

So how much you cut off the yard of fabric depends on a) how long your foot is and b) how high whatever kind of shoe or boot you’re wearing is.

I’ve had the same boots now for over four months and the inside fabric is still intact.  Which is like a miracle.  I use a shoe horn to put my boots on, and what I do is push the material against the heel of my boot with the shoe horn as I put my foot in so the fabric stays in place between my heel and the heel of the boot.  And then I lace up the boot.

Every couple of months the fabric will wear out and you’ll have to do the job again.  But that’s a lot better than the inside of your shoe or boot wearing out, you see.

Like I said, if you could find leather strips about 2-3″ wide, it would be ideal.  Maybe Michael’s sells leather strips?  I haven’t been there to find out.

I just thought I’d pass that tip along.

We freaks need to stick together, you know.







Malaysian Government On Flight 370 And Obama On ANY Of His MANY Scandals: The EXACT Same Treatment

April 1, 2014

Chinese families are PISSED over the Malaysian government’s constant stonewalling.

Every decent American knows pretty much EXACTLY how those Chinese victims’ families feel.

What the Chinese keep hearing from Malaysian authorities is the same thing that we keep hearing from Obama on a host of different scandals: from Obama putting thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who used those guns to murder an American Border Patrol officer to the scandal in Benghazi to the scandal at the IRS, it’s no different WHATSOEVER from what the Chinese families are hearing regarding whatever the hell happened to Flight 370.

I heard a Chinese victim’s family member talking about the Malaysian governments’ stonewalling.  What is the Malaysian government saying to these families?

“We can’t talk about that because it’s under investigation.”

“I’m not responsible for that.”

Basically, “Go away.  We aint saying squat and you can’t do a damn thing about it.”

One of the amazing things about the mainstream American media is how willing they have been to act the part of Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and simply report whatever their Führer says as true while mocking whatever the opponents of the Führer says as false.  If you want to know what it’s like to watch television in North Korea as to how they treat their “Dear Leader,” just watch MSNBC for an hour or so.

No American president will ever be accountable to Congress or to any American system ever again after Obama.  It’s kind of like the public matching funds system that every presidential candidate since Nixon has used until Obama – who raised and spent more money on his campaign than any leader in the history of planet earth bar none: Obama obliterated accountability.

Product Review: Sportline Digital Distance Tracker Pedometer

March 22, 2014

A little about myself: over the past two years, I’ve lost about a hundred pounds, going from an obviously unfit 330+ pounder to an obviously fit 230+ pounder.  Obviously (seems like a good word), I’ve had to make a few changes to accomplish that.

I joined a gym and have worked out hard.  But even before I joined the gym, I was working toward losing weight – and it was that previous exercise routine that enabled me to have the courage to join a gym.  What was that “previous exercise”?  Walking.

I live in the California desert, and started heading out with my dog every day for a walk.  At first it was hard to psych myself up for it.  But it became easier and easier as I made it a habit.  And those walks are now the highlight of my day.

One of the things I discovered that really helped me transform my walking is a pedometer.  By keeping track of how far you’ve walked, you 1) know how many calories you’ve burned and 2) know how far you went yesterday so you can challenge yourself to go further today and further yet tomorrow.

You can read up on pedometers and see how weight loss specialist recommend them as an aide/tool (for another example, see here).

I wear mine everywhere I think I’m going to do a fair amount of walking.  I wear it shopping, for instance.  And there’s something about seeing those step numbers go up and then click over to the distance and see that I’ve gone x.xx miles that makes me want to go just a little bit further.  If I’ve gone nearly a mile, something in me makes me want to keep walking until I’ve gone that full mile.  If you think that’s crazy, all I can say is that it’s really nice to finally use my crazy to my benefit for a change.

But then there’s the question: which pedometer should I buy?

Well, I’ve bought four of them.  And the first three weren’t very good.  The last one has been so good I’m singing its praises.

I bought it at Wal-Mart for about $15.  It is a “Sportline Digital Distance Tracker” (UPC 095121107035).

The units I bought prior had the advantage of being cheaper.  But they had the disadvantages of being far more fragile, far less accurate, far less easy to attach to yourself, and frankly far less easy to use.

Let me take those in order:

The Sportline Digital Distance Tracker has been durable.  I’ve actually screwed up and let the thing go through the washing machine.  I was sure it was destroyed.  But believe it or not, I removed the battery, kept the compartment open, actually took the thing on a walk just to wave it around so it would have a chance to air out, and when I put the battery back in the thing came on and worked perfectly.  Since that mishap, I check all my pants and shorts pockets for pedometers before they go into the washing machine.  I’ve also dropped it a couple of times, which was more than enough to kill one of my cheaper units.  I mean, don’t do that stuff, but this unit has proven to be a pretty durable gadget for me.

The Sportline Digital Distance Tracker has been more accurate.  It has what they call “3 axis digital accuracy.”  And since I walk out in the desert, up and down hills and over uneven terrain, I discovered that cheaper units simply don’t record all of your steps if you don’t walk in such an even-stride manner that makes them happy.  As an example, I walked up a steep hill with another unit and was depressed to note that it hadn’t recorded a single step after all that work.  This unit has been by far the best at keeping count of my steps no matter where those steps have been.  Whatever unit you buy, I strongly suggest you get one that has that 3 axis deal.

The Sportline Digital Distance Tracker has been easier to attach to myself.  It’s part of the “3 axis” thing.  Most units will clip to your belt or tie to your shoelace.  And this one will do that, too.  But you can also just stick it in your pocket.  Which is what I do.  Warning: if you’re absent-minded, you run the risk of accidentally throwing it in the washing machine.  Please don’t do that – although my unit did come back to life.

The Sportline Digital Distance Tracker has been easy to use.  I remember one unit that was so awkward to use I practically needed to have the manual with me for the first month.  And by the time I figured out how it worked, it wasn’t working any more.  This unit is REAL easy to use.  Once you have programmed your stride length, you only need to click ONE button to go from your total step count to your distance walked to your calories burned to your time spent walking and back to your total step count.

Now, let me say something about the stride length.  My advice: don’t worry about it being hyper-accurate with your stride length.  The first time I started using pedometers, I was as hung-up with precisely measuring my stride length as a sprinter coach is about his stop watch.  But what I’ve learned is that the key to using these things is to keep pushing yourself to go a little further and then a little further.  And as long as you don’t keep monkeying around with the stride length, it will be the same from walk to walk to walk and you’ll know how far you’ve gone relative to your previous walk.  That bit of wisdom came to me as I pondered my walks: when I walk uphill, my stride length is one thing, when I walk downhill it is another, and when I walk on soft sand or over an uneven trail it is another thing yet.  But while my pace is uneven, I still have a much better idea of how far I’ve gone than I would have without the darn thing and I definitely have a good idea of how far I’ve gone today relative to yesterday as I hike different trails.

If you want to lose weight or just get your heart and lungs in better condition, I urge you to get off your butt and start walking.  And I advise you to start out with a small, manageable walk – don’t tell yourself you’re going to start walking ten miles a day because it will be too much for you and you won’t be able to keep it up – and then build your body and your schedule and your desire to keep going up so that you go further and further.

Oh, a dog helps, too.  It is nice to have a buddy to walk with.  And nobody loves going for a walk more than a dog!

Welcome To The Brotherhood Of Iron

June 5, 2013

When I was a young man I served in what was considered an “elite” unit.  I still remember the first time I got to wear my jump boots and my beret with my dress greens and see all the people in a room – or for that matter all the people in an auditorium – take notice.  And while we trained long and hard to the extent that my four years in the Army seemed more like eight simply due to the long hours we spent in the field, that feeling of pride, of knowing that I was something special in a way that everybody could identify, never went away.  If nothing else, we constantly were going to new Army schools and receiving new badges, we constantly deployed and added ribbons to our so-called fruit salad bars (the display of all the ribbons worn on the left chest of a dress uniform).  We simply constantly added to the pride that we all first felt when we put on our uniforms for the first time.

When a soldier puts away his uniform for the last time, he has to say goodbye to that direct experience of pride.  You still remember and feel the pride, but you don’t get to wear it anymore.  And, of course, when you don’t get to wear it any more, the only person in that room or that auditorium who knows what you’ve accomplished is you.  Which of course can still be satisfying, but it just isn’t nearly as fun.

All that said as my setup, it turns out that even though I’m not wearing a beret and dress greens replete with all my badges and ribbons, well, I still get to enjoy that feeling of “standing out.”

I don’t have a uniform that I can put on and take off; what I’ve got instead is a bunch of muscle.  Muscle that also stands out and sets me apart in a way that anyone can identify.

And just like the uniform that used to give me so much pride to wear, I don’t have pride just because of what I look like; I have pride because what I look like represents a lot of hours of hard, grueling work from which came strength.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at the kitchen counter at my church getting a cup of coffee, and a strikingly pretty young girl who was a member of the Hispanic congregation came up to me and said, “Are you a bodybuilder?”

Well, that question always discombobulates me.  Because, no, I don’t think of myself as a “bodybuilder.”  A bodybuilder is somebody who shaves off all their body hair, puts on a speedo, rubs on a bunch of oil and flexes onstage in competitions with other bodybuilders.  I’ve never done that and I’ve never wanted to do that.  Me, I’m a weight lifter, not a bodybuilder.  But, well, then again, I usually do a “bodybuilding” weight lifting routine, although I also do quite a bit of powerlifting stuff, and so I guess I’m kind of a bodybuilder…

Well, this pretty young girl bailed me out of fumbling to answer what had been intended as a very simple question.  And she said something I will probably never forget: “I saw you walking by and you looked like a super hero.”

That’s right.  A super hero.

Let me tell you why those words meant so much to me.  Two things.

The first thing you should know is that, as the years passed me by following my career as a soldier, I allowed my body to basically go to pot.  Eight months ago, before I finally decided to do something about it, I weighed in at over 300 pounds.  And I am now over sixty pounds lighter – even as I’ve put on quite a bit of muscle.

Now, sixty pounds in eight months is right in the range of the 1-2 pounds of weight loss per week that is considered optimum (overall, I’ve lost nearly two pounds a week, on average).  But for anybody who has ever tried to lose a lot of weight, I don’t have to tell you what a struggle it is, how hard you have to work to succeed, how many battles you have to win against your out-of-whack desires and most of all how frustratingly – even agonizingly – slow it feels to lose weight over a long period.  I’ve had an awful lot of compliments about how well I’ve done and how much better I look now, but that “super hero” line took the prize as the one that I will most treasure.

I’ve come so far in reclaiming myself and attaining some difficult-to-win goals.  And in that sense, all appearances aside, I AM a super hero, aren’t I?

It sure feels nice to be one again.

The second thing about that comment from that young girl is that it underscores why I started lifting weights in the first place when I was a kid.

I didn’t grow up in the computery-world of smart phones and apps; when we had our family vacations, my brother and I loaded up on comic books.  You know, the Marvel and DC kind, the kind that are replete with “super heroes.”

I wonder if there was ever a boy who read a comic book who never had it occur to him that he would very much like to look like the comic book super heroes they were looking at.

What sealed it for me was when my older brother – who was already lifting weights himself – got me turned on to the Robert E. Howard Conan the Barbarian character.  Believe me, Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t even come CLOSE to holding a candle to the incredible warrior that comes to life in the short stories of Howard.  Howard wrote so vividly and so viscerally and so visually that you could SEE Conan in your mind’s eye.  And I wanted to bring out my inner “Conan.”

And the only way I knew how to do that was to follow my big brother – which of course I’d already done so many times in the past – and start lifting weights.

I was already a big strong kid, and it didn’t take those weights very long to start leaving their mark.  The muscles came out just in time for the coach of my high school football team to notice them.  And those muscles made me one of the best players on the team.  Thanks to Conan the Barbarian.

I really got into lifting after I got out of the Army.  I seriously injured a knee during my service, and fell back into weight lifting during my rehab.

As I got big and strong, and then bigger and stronger, one of the things that I observed was the fact that those muscles gave me presence.  I couldn’t help but notice that people noticed, much the same way they had noticed when I was wearing my jump boots and beret with my dress greens.  A fair number of times I was in night clubs back then and women would come up to me and say, “Everyone in here is looking at you!”

I became used to that attention, such that it kind of went into the background as a common experience.

Which was why, as I first started to get away from weight lifting, and then as I began to put on the wrong kind of weight, I hardly noticed that I wasn’t getting quite so noticed.  And then one day it was gone entirely.

Eight months ago, when I decided that it was time for me to start loving myself enough to start taking care of myself, I didn’t start out thinking about reclaiming my former glory.  But it didn’t take long as I started dieting that I realized that I had to have some kind of vision of what I wanted to become.  When you need to lose sixty pounds and beyond, you aren’t just going to lose weight; you are going to TRANSFORM.  And as that realization came, I knew that I could never be content merely becoming smaller and thinner.  Because I’ve always had that drive to stand out.  And because when I closed my eyes and tried to visualize the ideal “me,” that “me” was always muscular and powerful.  It took me about three weeks to decide that I needed to join a gym and get to work transforming myself from what I was into what I wanted to become.

I never dreamed any of the muscles that I’d fought so hard for only to allow to vanish would ever come back.  But it turns out that there truly is something called “muscle memory.”  As I started hitting the weights for the first time in years, my body remembered the experience and started working overtime to rebuild.

Weight lifting is probably not for most people.  It is hard, grueling, even excruciating work.  You’ve got to want something bad enough to force yourself to the limits of your strength and endurance.  And then do it over and over and over again.  When you lift weights, you literally tear your muscle fibers apart and force them to keep growing so they can survive the next torture session you are going to put yourself through.  Every day is ass-kicking day, and it doesn’t matter if you’re the biggest, strongest, baddest dude there; because you are going to be kicking your own ass.

It takes a form of courage to go through workout after workout, day after day, week after week and month after month to keep pushing yourself past your previous limits.

I’ve had it all, and I’ve lost it all.  Now I want it back, I’m willing to work hard to get it back, and I will never take it for granted again when I get it back.

It’s a fascinating thing: I can’t say I enjoy lifting weights.  For example, I’ve got a case of tendonitis in my right elbow.  And so I know that when I do those five heavy sets of standing curls that it is going to HURT.  Oh, I could take three or four months off and get over that annoying pain – but don’t hold your breath waiting for me to do that.  Sometimes I take a little longer to hit that next set because I’ve simply got to screw on the courage to do it.  And even in the other lifts that don’t bother that nasty tendonitis, nothing is easy: in the brotherhood of iron we push our bodies to the point of failure and then past that point, and that kind of failure comes only with pain after an awful lot of exertion.

That’s the thing that makes weight lifting and bodybuilding a “brotherhood.”  Every guy in there who keeps coming back for more knows what every other guy has to put himself through.  In between our own sets we can watch our brothers struggling through their own.  And there’s a respect for one another that comes as a result.

Now, I call it a “brotherhood,” but there are some women in that group, too.

There are some real beautiful women in my gym who push themselves real hard to get in shape and to improve that shape.  The women are working toward a different goal, but they’re hitting a lot of the same exercises that hurt the most in their programs.  But it’s mostly us guys who are doing that hard pushing.  I’d say the hard-core lifters are at about a 15-1 male-to-female ratio.  Women are most certainly welcome – please don’t ever think for a nanosecond that guys don’t enjoy watching an attractive woman work out!  But until a lot more of them show up, the gym is a “brotherhood.”

Unfortunately, many women continue to believe the rather silly notion that if they lift weights, they’ll put on a whole bunch of muscle.  The thing is, if putting on muscle were really that easy, don’t you think that all the guys – who have on average at least 20 TIMES the muscle-building testosterone hormone that women have – would all be walking around with giant muscles?  Sadly, these women – along with not giving the men the credit for the muscles they had to work so hard to earn – are undermining their own abilities to transform and shape themselves by denying themselves the incredibly powerful tool of weight lifting.

There are women who work out hard several days a week in my gym.  And these women are just absolutely gorgeous.  Believe me, NOBODY confuses them for men.

But let us talk a little bit more about a gym as a “brotherhood.”

I can’t speak of every gym in the world, but in my gym, there are a lot of hand shakes and even more “fist bumps.”  Many of us tend to train on the same schedules.  We therefore see each other for a couple hours a day several times a week, we obviously have many of the same interests, we encourage each other and we start growing rather fond of each other.

Those of us who keep coming in and working hard have something else in common that unites us: we each of us have that sense of soul-deep vision as to what we ideally look like – and we’re each working to make that vision of ourselves a reality.  No matter how hard it is or how long it takes.  We’re the kind of people who are willing to fight to make what we dream about happen.  That’s where the “Brotherhood of Iron” part comes in: we’ve each got to lift a lot of iron and we each need iron resolve in order to keep doing it.

Every man and woman has his or her own ideal self-image.  Some guys just want to be big and powerful and they frankly don’t care whether they’re blocky-looking or don’t have “abs.”  Other guys – and I’m in this group – want to build the muscle and eliminate the body fat.  But there are a LOT of other potential ways to go, aren’t there?  Runners and cyclists and swimmers all have a very different idea as to what they ought to look like, for instance.  And that’s the way it ought to be.  We each have our own bodies and we each have our own ideals and our own goals.  What’s important is what we are willing to do to make those ideals and goals happen in the real world.

That’s the ultimate question: the dream or vision you’ve got – just what are you willing to endure to make it come true?

At this point I’ve probably got about twenty pounds more to lose – while working hard to keep the muscle I’ve got if not build more of it – in order to reach my own vision.  Twenty pounds is a daunting challenge.  But then again, I’ve already been there and done that three times as I’ve lost that sixty pounds, haven’t I?

What I love about my gym is that I’m in the right place, and in the company of the right people, to help me get where I want to be.

Untitled (2)

Update, July 21: As of today, I’ve lost 71 pounds in 10 months (and 7 pounds since I wrote this). And I have done it through a combination of nutrition/diet changes and an exercise level whereby an overloaded draft horse would look at me and say, “Well, at least I’m not THAT poor bastard!” I like exercise and I have made that work in my favor. But at the core of my program has been the fact that I literally envisioned and SAW what I wanted to become, and then I began to use weight training to help me accomplish my goals and make my vision a reality.

I’m getting there, and you can do the same. But it won’t happen until you make up your mind and truly resolve to MAKE it happen.

Pictures Of My Praying Mantis Babies

March 30, 2013

I know. I know. I have many mouths to feed. And lots of baby shoes to buy.

Baby praying mantises don’t need diapers, do they?

All attempts at humor aside, I’ve always been fascinated by praying (or preying) mantises. So I manufactured an excuse that I clearly needed to buy a few egg cases.

And what do you know, I was fortunate enough to capture the action as one of the eggs hatched!

If you have a lot of babies all at once, does that mean you get a lot of cigars?

This was an event that needed to be shared with the world, so like any proud “daddy” here are my new babies (you can click on it to see it larger):



P1220111 - Copy

A Former Sports Bike Guy’s Thoughts On V-Twin Motorcycle Engines And The Harleys That Made Them Famous

March 25, 2013

Are you considering buying a motorcycle, or considering switching from one type of street bike (e.g., sports bike, cruiser, touring bike, sports tourer) to another?

I found myself in that situation.

I’ve owned several sports bikes.  Never even would have CONSIDERED buying a Harley or for that matter ANY v-twin engined bike, as I frankly considered them to be mechanically inferior.

If sombody had suggested a Harley Davidson bike to me, I would have – with something of a sneer – stated that Harley bikes featured technology that was ancient when dinosaurs walked the earth with an engine that is still around only because for some bizarre reason people actually like the sound of uneven idling just as they like paying twice as much money for a massively heavy bike with inadequate power.  I also would have pointed out with that same sneer that Harleys were infamous for peeing oil and didn’t finally stop vibrating for half an hour after being shut down.

My first sport bike was a 1983 Suzuki GS 1100e that produced 104 bone stock hoursepower to propel its 500 lbs like a bat out of hell.  It won “Motorcycle of the Year” because it deserved to.  My best friend had the same year Harley Superglide (we’d both bought our bikes brand spanking new with our enlistment bonus checks) that was trying in vain to make it down the road with 68 horses while it weighed in at well over 600 lbs.

With all the power that Suzuki had, it apparently still wasn’t enough: I installed a big bore kit, a performance carburetor and a performance exhaust.  That sucker was putting out over 150 horseys and if you’d ask me to do a wheelie, I would have asked you which gear you wanted me to do it in.  I could get on the freeway and hit the 55 mph speed limit and THEN smoke the rear wheel.  The thing sounded like a fighter jet and I used to love riding home from the bars and setting off all the car alarms at 3 am (it was even more fun on the one-way roads where I could set off all the car alarms on either side of the street).

Suffice it to say I didn’t get the whole Harley thing.  At all.

I’ve had a few other sport bikes since that ’83 Suzuki, and never really seriously considered riding anything other than a bike that wasn’t in the class of “crotch rocket.”  The only thing I wanted more than a bike that went fast was a bike that went even faster.

A bad wreck and a head that got increasingly full of gray hair – possibly from worrying about getting in another bad wreck – changed my attitude.

Well, at least some.

I was looking for a bike that had a) saddlebags and b) a windshield or fairing that actually managed to deflect wind.

That already meant I was “getting old,” mind you.  There’s that line from the movie Big Trouble in Little China: “A brave man likes the feel of nature on his face.”  And the reply: “Yeah, and a wise man has enough sense to get in out of the rain!”

While one might argue that wise men don’t throw their legs over motorcycles, I would point out that I was at least trying to make strides from brave fool to wise man.  I wanted saddlebags because dang you can’t pack very much stuff in those little back packs you have to wear on a sport bike, and I wanted a shield because I was getting tired of freezing in the rain.

Sport bikes by definition don’t have saddle bags and they don’t have actual functioning wind shields – as you would learn for yourself were you to hug the gas tank behind those tiny little sport fairings during a rain the way a soldier hugs the deck during an incoming artillery barrage.

I was getting old enough to start having the beginnings of that rare state of mind otherwise known as common sense.  Maybe not enough common sense to look out of a car window with the AC blasting, but common sense as it relates to two wheels.

That left me with buying a sport tourer.  Because I sure wasn’t old enough to want a full dress touring bike.  And I still had enough of a pulse that I didn’t want to drag around on a Harley.

But as I looked at the sport tourers, I couldn’t help but notice the cruiser bikes that I’d largely ignored did in fact have the saddlebags and windshield that I wanted.

I don’t know how it happened, exactly.  But I kept looking at bikes, and those cruisers had all that beautiful chrome and those sport tourers had all that … plastic.

And, almost against my will, I began to appreciate that chrome.

I’ve always loved old cars, and one of the things I love about old cars is all that bright, shiny chrome and the styling that is absolutely nowhere to be found these days as cars all look like they came out of the same wind-tunnel research.

Do you know why you don’t see Harley engines being surrounded by a bunch of plastic?  Because v-twins are absolutely beautiful engines and it would be a crime to hide them under a plastic sport bike fairing.

That’s the beginning of understanding the appeal of a v-twin engine: they are visual works of art.  Versus the sport bike engines that are usually covered up because frankly nobody really gives a damn what they look like as long as they’re fast.  The bottom line is that sport bike engines aren’t beautiful – apart from the sheer beauty of function – and they were never intended to be beautiful.

Harley guys accuse the so-called “metric twins” built in Japan of being soulless clones.  What is interesting is that over the past few years, it has been Harley following the Japanese more than vice versa.  The Japanese saw the market for performance v-twins and built bikes with more grunt: it was Harley that followed suit as they scrambled to build bikes with bigger engines while trying to keep their patented exhaust sound.

Harleys DO sound beautiful; and unlike any other make of motorcycle, it doesn’t take an expert to be able to tell that a bike is a Harley from the exhaust note alone.  That said, it turns out that the issue is more about complying with federal regulations limiting decibels than it is about make and model.  Harleys sound like “Harleys” largely because virtually all Harley owners have their stock federal-complying exhausts removed and replaced with different aftermarket Harley exhausts.  Which many metric cruiser owners do as well (you listen to a couple of aftermarket pipes for Roadliners here and here).

When it came time to pull the trigger and buy a bike, I bought a Yamaha Stratoliner.  That is, I bought an 1854 cc (as in nearly 1.9 liter!) engine.  In Harley speak, that’s 113 cubic inches, which for the record is ten cubic inches bigger than the biggest Hog.  On a bike that weighs a good sixty pounds less than a Hog due to its having an aluminum frame.  That aluminum frame consists of a total of eight pieces, versus 40-60 separate components for a typical tubular steel frame.  That means a lot less weight shift, which means a lot more stability.

As for the stock factory sound of the exhaust, one reviewer for stated that the Roadliner/Stratoliner had “the best exhaust note of any OEM cruiser” in a comparison that included a Harley-Davidson bike.  An aftermarket system will make it sound a lot louder by eliminating the federal-mandated baffling, but it won’t make it sound sweeter.

Harley owners as well as the metric v-twin guys who modified their exhausts justify themselves by claiming that the louder they are, the safer they are.  They claim, “They might not be able to see me, but they’ll damn sure be able to hear me.”  But the actual studies have demonstrated pretty conclusively that bikes with loud exhausts aren’t one iota less likely to avoid collisions with cars than bikes with quieter exhausts.  So it’s really about being loud rather than being safe.  And the bottom line is that they like being loud.

I like my ears the way God intended them to be able to hear something else besides my own exhaust.  But that’s just me.

The Yamaha Stratoliner features the second largest v-twin engine on the road (behind the 2000 cc Kawasaki Vulcan 2000).  And in the world of v-twins, it features the 3rd fastest major production v-twin cruiser ever put on the road (behind only the Vulcan, the Suzuki M109 and Harley’s answer to the sport bikes, the V-Rod).  Still, in the shootout that considered the mega v-twin’s total performance, it was the Roadliner (the Strat’s twin wearing bags and windshield) that emerged as “Godzilla.”

Yamaha actually considered building the biggest mega v-twin on the planet – 2,400 cc.  But the prototype was so big and heavy that it was a buzz kill to ride around in the real world.

What they came up with instead was a great bike with a great engine.

I just wasn’t ready for a Harley-Davidson yet.  Not when the Road King (for example) crawled along from 0-60 mph in 8 seconds.  I mean, dang, I wanted to get to the next traffic light before civilization collapsed and mankind re-entered the stone age and humans started to look like, well, like a bunch of hairy, bearded bikers.

The 1854 cc Stratoliner/Roadliner engine does the 0-60 thing in less than half the time at 3.8 seconds.  Which is comparable to a Corvette Z06.  It’s got about the same 1/4 mile time, too.  And since not many people are driving their Corvettes around like bats out of hell, I don’t have to worry very much about whether I’m going to be able to get in the lane I want to get in out of a red light.

Granted, I’m not going to blow the wheels off a Suzuki Hayabusa that hits 60 mph a full second quicker (and in first gear, no less), but I’m too old and wise for a bike like that now, remember?

That Stratoliner is actually fast enough to widen the eyes of anybody who doesn’t have a Hayabusa or one of the very, very few highest of the high performance sport bikes that compete with it.  And I don’t have to curl myself up into a pretzel doing it, either.

V-twin cruisers and sport bikes make their power in different ways.  Sport bikes produce a horsepower-to-weight ratio that defies belief; cruisers produce gobs of torque.  The difference is an inline sport bike engine that was designed to be wound up to nearly 10,000 rpm before attaining max power versus a v-twin cruiser engine that produces its maximum power at (in the case of the Stratoliner) between 2,300 and 4,500 rpm.

In other words, the v-twin power is available immediately.  Everything is down low where you want it most.  More importantly, it’s available to where riders want it in real-world driving conditions as opposed to a racing track.

When I’m on the freeway doing 70 mph, I’m running at about 2,600 rpm whether the wind is in my face or at my back.  If I want to pass somebody, I’m right there in my max power range.  And I don’t have to wind up nothin’.  That’s how 124 ft-lbs of torque works.

V-twins are not bikes for guys who want to fly at triple digit mph.  Because they weren’t built with race tracks in mind.  But they do their job quite well under ridiculous speeds.  And they most certainly aren’t dogs out of a red light if a manufacturer doesn’t want them to be.

It’s a different concept.  It’s a luxury car versus a sports car.  Only my Strat is a performance luxury car.  It has a big, high compression engine with a giant 100mm x 118mm bore and stroke, a twin-bore fuel-injection system with 43mm throttle bodies and 12-hole injector nozzles, high performance spec twin, crankcase-mounted, high-lift cams, huge 100mm bore ceramic composite-plated cylinders and an exhaust system (borrowed from the sport bikes) featuring a valve that stays closed at lower rpm to maximize torque that opens at higher rpm to maximize horsepower.

The young bucks who race around on the sport bikes ARE out to impress; that’s just what young bucks do.  They’re like the actual young bucks in nature who run into each other with their horns at high speed.  I’m not knocking them; it’s what I did when I was a young buck, after all.  When I was 20 and some old turd tried to tell me what a “real” motorcycle was and then started droning on about Harleys, I’m sure my eyes glazed over and my brains jumped out of my ear about two seconds into the lecture.

Now, that young buck will eat my lunch on every curve on every curvy road on any sport bike.  But I’ll let him: I’ve been down and dang did it ever hurt.  When it comes to hairpin curves I’m just in a lot less of a hurry to injure myself than I used to be.  Where I live there’s a better than even chance that there will be sand or gravel at the intersections.  And strawberries are much tastier when eaten than they are when worn on your body.  I take my turns slow and stately these days.  On a bike that makes slow and stately look good.

I’m at that point in life where I’d rather get somewhere in style and comfort than race around like the brave fool.

I love my chrome.  I love my smooth ride.  I love my floor boards.  I love the heel shifter and the fact that every gear is “down” for me as opposed to first gear being down and the rest being up.  I love being able to put my boots up and lean back into my back rest and just cruise down the road all day long.  And if some kid goes flying by me at twice the legal limit in a body posture that would cause my lower back to miserably die in about half an hour, I just chuckle and say a biker’s prayer for that young buck and keep on enjoying the buzz of my ride.  I’m cruising down the road at 70 or 75 and I’m right in my power band and I’m getting 42 mpg, and I’m just as happy as a clam in its shell.

The seats on cruisers were designed around the concept of comfort, of being able to accommodate the butt of somebody who isn’t one of those incredibly gaunt fashion models.  The cruisers were designed around the concept of a comfortable riding position.  Not even the sport touring bikes match them for pure comfort.

Believe me, you start to care about stuff like that as you age out of being young and dumb.

I used to mock Harley guys for caring all about style and nothing about performance.  And preferring comfort to sheer omygod speed?  Heresy!!!  But I now realize that “performance” and speed for the most part are about bragging rights as much as they are about anything else.  My bike can go 180 mph, someone might tell me.  And I’m thinking, “And just where in the world do you plan to actually DO thatAnd while we’re talking about it, WHY do you want to do that?  Were you tossed in the air and dropped on your head too many times as a baby or something?”  What I’m saying is Harley guys who love the way their bikes look and sound and feel don’t have to apologize to guys who boast about quarter-mile times and G-force turns.  And as you get a little older and a little wiser, you tend to care a lot more about the former and a lot less about the latter.

Whatever floats your boat.  Whatever rocks your world.  Knowhatimean?

Having ragged on Harleys a fair bit, let me say this about them: they do what they were intended to do every bit as well as the sport bikes do what they were intended to do.

Harley-Davidson has a long-term view of motorcycling.  They are engaged in all kinds of venues to just introduce people to motorcycles and get them to start riding, whether they’re riding Harleys or even whether they’re riding the competition.  And the reason they do that is that they believe that everybody who rides will ultimately choose to ride a Harley.

I now understand why they’re right.  You can’t beat Harleys for style, even if you can beat them in every other way.  There just comes a point when you’re drawn to the style and image of a beautiful machine.  Harleys are all about “the ride” when you have grown up enough to stop racing and start cruising.

My next bike probably won’t be a Harley (although it might be).  There’s still enough “kid” in me that I want that big bore performance.  But at some point – having finally personally experienced a v-twin motorcycle – I can easily imagine myself choosing a Harley.  I can (gasp!) even imagine myself choosing a full dress tourer.  My v-twin has opened up the entire world of motorcycling to me in a way that thinking in sport bike performance terms never would have done for me.

A few pictures of my Strat:





The Yamaha team that designed the Stratoliner and Roadliner didn’t set out to “clone” Harley-Davidson motorcycles.  Rather, they went back to a previous era that was still uniquely American.  They went back to the pre-Harley 1920s/1930s “streamliner” art deco style that influenced art and found its way into both architectural and automotive designs.  The result is a long, streamlined, elongated stylized look found in the Roadliner’s 102″ (a full 7″ longer than similar class Harleys) length and its swooping stance.  At the same time, it most definitely DOES copy Harley in that it was an attempt to wed style and art with motorcycling function – which has always been the design philosophy at the core of Harley-Davidson’s appeal.

Motorcycles are just fun.  When you can look down and see the road rushing past beneath your feet, when you don’t have to roll down a window to experience real, actual air, when you feel the freedom and rush that only a bike can provide, you start to get it.  If it’s got two wheels, I’ll ride it and I’ll have a blast riding it.  And if I don’t have the soul of a Harley rider in me yet, suffice it to say I’m beginning to grow one.

An Ambassador And Three Americans Died, Obama Lied

October 24, 2012

There is simply no longer any question that Barack Obama personally and the entire Obama administration are DOCUMENTED LIARS over their cover-up attempt to hide their debacle at Benghazi.

The first three sentences alone prove that Barack Hussein Obama is a liar.  Two weeks AFTER the attack he was trying to claim that we didn’t know what happened and we’re investigating.  YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, YOU LIAR:

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.


The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda’s faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials “carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time.”

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

“Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely,” the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

It is now official testimony from the State Department: THERE WAS NO VIDEO PROTEST OUTSIDE THE CONSULATE PRIOR TO THE ATTACK.  And yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney and Susan Rice lied lied lied lied lied like the weasels they are for days and even for weeks.

You’ve got to understand: Republicans like Senator John McCain – and of course like MITT ROMNEY – were saying that this was a giant lie from about hour one of day one.

We also know that Obama was notified when he still very possibly had time to act to to save Ambassador Stevens’ and the other three Americans’ lives AND REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING.

Meanwhile the entire Obama administration foreign policy that was based on the utter foolish dumbass lie that killing one man (bin Laden) somehow won the war on terror is melting down all over the world.

It’s time to get a new president.  And then put the last one along with most of his entire damn administration in prison the way he tried to put the CIA heroes who successfully interrogated the al Qaeda terrorists.

Documents Continue To Prove What Lying Weasels Obama And His Toxic Administration Are In The Libya Attack

October 20, 2012

Barack Obama claimed that he referred to the Libya attack as an “act of terror” in a short speech he gave at the Rose Garden just before he flew off to do a fundraiser in Las Vegas.  It’s bullcrap, of course (and if memory serves, George W. Bush did NOT run off to do a fundraiser the day after the previous 9/11 attack), and as I document here, Obama HIMSELF - not to mention his entire administration – proves that he did NOT call the Libya attack a terrorist attack.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say Obama DID call the worst terrorist attack on American soil since that last devastating 9/11 attack that the more recent one was timed to mock “an act of terror.”  You know, just before jetting off to do a fundraiser.  Let’s say that Obama DID call it an act of terror.  Then the jackass-in-chief instructed his Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice to go to all five major network political programs and repeatedly say the exact opposite.  And then Obama sent out his press secretary Jay Carney to say the exact opposite.  And then he sent out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say the exact opposite.  And then two weeks later after being asked on both The View and on Univision whether it was a terrorist attack Obama refused to answer the question that Obama now says he’d actually already answered and instead said, “We’re still investigating.”  As bizarre and as dishonest as that is, let’s say that Obama actually DID call the attack on sovereign US territory in Libya an “act of terror.”

How in the hell would that excuse him for his abject failure of leadership that resulted in the murder of the first United States ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe way back in 1979?  And just why the hell is it that two of the last three Democrat presidents have killed US ambassadors versus ZERO of the last three Republican presidents, anyway???

We now know for a fact that not only did murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens ask for more security – only to have the inadequate security that he had CUT by Obama – but we now that in fact Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security at least forty days before his murder.  And in fact for SEVEN MONTHS prior to this attack security professionals were telling Obama there was a very big problem in Benghazi:

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
By James Rosen
Published October 19, 2012

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents — released Friday by  a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more  answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack – slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded  alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and  violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the  ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted  “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the  part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces.  These  forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier  with local militia commanders.  These men boasted to Stevens of exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled  “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.”  Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on  the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

By Sept. 4, Stevens’ aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong  Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.” “Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised  explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that  an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had  “described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of  the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the  ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times  flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of  requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the  attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their  assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the  regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a  Feb. 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time)  that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD (a mobile security  detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn’t going to  provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”

“DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this  has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State  Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often  means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department  of State) personnel present.  That often also means that outreach and  reporting is non-existent.”

Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had  apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on  the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi.  Crowley added: “(T)omorrow  Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. … This will leave us unable to do  any outreach to Libyan nationals … and we will be extremely limited in the  ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”

These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier  from Nordstom.  In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida  affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other  violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political  turmoil in Libya.  The U.S. Government remains concerned that such  individuals and groups … may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct  attacks in the region.”

By Feb. 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias  enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted,  crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy  weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”

In the days leading up to Sept. 11, warnings came even from people outside  the State Department.  A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis,  confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since  the revolution, I am scared.”

The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing  the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House  Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.   In a letter to President Obama, dated Oct. 19 and accompanied by the  documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing  inadequate security before Sept. 11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of  the events on Sept. 11.

“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador  Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were  manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination  attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote.  “For this  administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11  anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, in response to the latest  documents: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault  on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what  happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

At the State Department briefing Friday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined  to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the  Central Intelligence Agency had informed the Obama administration on Sept. 12  that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.

Oh, yeah, that statement from the CIA station chief in Libya WITHIN HOURS OF THE ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE that it was IN FACT A TERRORIST ATTACK.  Keep in mind that Obama had instructed his administration to blame US intelligence for his administration’s lying to the American people for more than two weeks.  Note that the VERY FIRST SENTENCE utterly refutes the White House lies that were told to the American people over and over and over again:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The CIA  station chief  in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of  last  month’s deadly attack on the U.S.  Consulate that there was evidence it  was carried out by militants, not a  spontaneous mob upset about an  American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet  Muhammad, U.S. officials  have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw  the cable outside the CIA  at that point and how high up in the agency  the information went. The Obama  administration maintained publicly for a  week that the attack on the diplomatic  mission in Benghazi that killed  U.S. Ambassador Chris  Stevens and three other Americans was a result of  the mobs that staged  less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around  the 11th anniversary of the  9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those  statements have become highly charged political fodder as the   presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House  committee  questioned State  Department officials for hours about what GOP  lawmakers  said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist   Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday,  President Barack Obama and Republican  challenger Mitt Romney argued  over when Obama first said it was a terror  attack. In his Rose Garden  address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror  will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that  character  or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

But  Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call   the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the  president and  other key members of his administration referring at first  to the anti-Muslim  movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating  event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding  documents to show  what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during  and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack   probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked  group, with no public  demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary  RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of  war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The  officials who told the AP about the CIA  cable spoke anonymously because  they were not authorized to release such  information publicly.

Congressional  aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this  week to  build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare   that to what the White House was telling the  public about the attack.  That could give Romney ammunition to use in his  foreign policy debate  with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA  station chief in Libya compiled intelligence  reports from eyewitnesses  within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate  that indicated militants  launched the violence, using the pretext of  demonstrations against U.S.  facilities in Egypt  against the film to cover their intent. The report  from the station chief was  written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached  intelligence agencies in  Washington the next day, intelligence  officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points  sent by the CIA  to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi  were  spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S.  Embassy in Cairo and  evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by  the AP, added: “There are indications that  extremists participated in  the violent demonstrations” but did not mention  eyewitness accounts that  blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA  on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the  headquarters in  Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other  intelligence derived from  eavesdropping drones and satellite images.  Only then would such intelligence  generally be shared with the White  House and  later, Congress, a process that can take hours,  or days if the  intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or  may not  be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in  this case the delay  was due in part to the time it took to analyze various  conflicting  accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because  he  wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it  was  clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that  the early  question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they  were the crowd,” and  it took until the following week to figure that  out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I  think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very  good  individual, put out some speaking points on the initial  intelligence  assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair  Dianne Feinstein,  D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5  in California this  week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“The  early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are   hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being  pretty far  afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want  to deter the  intelligence community from sharing their best first  impressions” after such  events in the future.

“The intelligence  briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent  with what the  administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry,  R-Texas, a  member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees.   Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA  report but  voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA  Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original  account when they  briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How could they be so certain  immediately after such events, I just don’t  know,” he said. “That raises  suspicions that there was political  motivation.”

National  Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The  Office of  the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for  comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door  testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that  during  questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts   who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had  initiated  the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not  mention the CIA’s  early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that  the account could change  as more intelligence was uncovered, they said,  speaking on condition of  anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond  the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s  also  proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently   killed Stevens and his communications aide  or launched the mortars that  killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as  contract security guards at  a fallback location. That delay is prompting  lawmakers to question  whether the intelligence community has the resources it  needs to  investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight   against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials  say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi  militia, Ansar  al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but  is known  to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida  in the Islamic  Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan  locals  at the consulate during the  violence, and intelligence intercepts show  the militants were in contact with  AQIM militants before and after the  attack, one U.S.  intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence  has not been  able to match those reported sightings with the faces of  attackers caught on  security camera recordings during the attack, since  many U.S.  intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the  aftermath of the  violence, the two U.S. intelligence  officials said.

Nor  have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was   preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers  used,  setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the  backup compounds, then  attacking the main entrance to distract, while  sending a larger force to  assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may  prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to  bring about  relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a   post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is  so new  it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the  location of  U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

You had to be a brain-dead dumbass (i.e., even DUMBER than a regular garden variety dumbass) not to immediately conclude that an murderous attack from three sides utilizing heavy weapons on the anniversary of 9/11 was NOT a planned terrorist attack.  And there is absolutely zero question that the White House did not want to acknowledge the disaster that they had just presided over, which is why they lied their asses off and are STILL lying their asses off.

The Watergate cover-up led to President Nixon resigning from office.  And this is so much worse than Watergate it isn’t even funny.

I am preserving here another report from ABC on the damning Stevens memos that indict and convict Barack Obama and his entire administration:

Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
By Jake Tapper

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

A Libyan government national security official told Stevens “that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya. A number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna,” a village to the east in Benghazi. Other contacts disagreed with that assessment, however.

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Stevens wrote that the people of Benghazi want a security apparatus but “inherently fear abuse by the same authorities. This debate, playing out daily in Benghazi, has created the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

In a letter to President Obama, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, note the Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound – not just those who survived.”

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Get more pure politics at and a lighter take on the news at

Nordstrom adds at 9:00 pm: “the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.”

Meanwhile, security on the ground became increasingly precarious.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The committee also released some photographs of the Benghazi compound, before and after the attack.

Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

-Jake Tapper


As Obama’s Foreign Policy Completely Melts Down Two Months Before Election, Desperate Mainstream Media Propagandists Gang Up To Slander Romney Statement

September 14, 2012

The most blatant way the mainstream media engages in bias is their answer to the question, “What is news?”  Because their answer INVARIABLY undermines conservatives and strives to support liberals.

As an example, what was the story two days ago?  Was the story about a planned, coordinated attack on the US consulate in Libya that resulted in four Americans (including the United States Ambassador) being murdered?  Was the story about the fact that Obama had information about the attack plans on the US Consulate in Libya for 48 hours and did NOTHING? Was the story about a coordinated mob of AstroTurf Muslims overrunning the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt while Egyptian security forces conveniently vanished, with the United States flag torn down and desecrated and replaced with a flag that al Qaeda has flown?  Was the story about how on Obama’s watch and just two months before he comes up for reelection the name “Osama bin Laden” is now written on the United States Embassy entrance or how under Obama that entrance now states, “There is no God but Allah”?  Nope.  The media says that wasn’t the story.

Obama demagogued Mitt Romney for “shooting and then aiming.”  In an eery repeat of Jimmy Carter before the American people fired his incompetent ass.  Read this to see HOW eerily similar Obama is to the failed Jimmy Carter.

Do you know what they say the story was?

Let’s look at what all the journalists from all the various media outlets coordinated with one another to make sure that Mitt Romney would get attacked no matter who he picked (we know know the CBS reporter was Jan Crawford and she was sharpening knives with NPR correspondent Ari Shapiro):

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.


CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..


CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

And so, sure enough, the story, the “news”, was NOT about the meltdown of Obama’s entire foreign policy which had famously even been criticized by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the 2008 Democrat primary race.  The “news” was NOT that for more than nine hours the ONLY official American statement coming from the United States government was this:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

 Now, that statement is so gutless, so cowardly, and frankly so un-American that it is beyond unreal.  And THAT was the ONLY official statement for half a damn day after it was issued.  Note that it literally agrees with the people who are attacking American soil by climbing over the walls of our embassy and tearing down our flag and burning it.  Note that it decries not the despicable ACT-OF-WAR actions of the Egyptians but rather an American who is practicing his constitutionally (at least up to now) right to free speech.

I note that that official statement from the US Embassy in Cairo was so despicable that it has since been taken down “like it never even happened.”  The Daily Caller, in citing the statement by the embassy, provides the official link The Obama cowards who run the government have now scrubbed that link so the statement is no longer officially available.  Nothin’ to see here, folks.  Because under Obama the 1984 “Ministry of Truth” is now itself a truth.  That’s how despicable that statement was.

The “news” was not about the fact that Obama denounced the same statement that had motivated Mitt Romney to come out as the White House finally – FINALLY!!! – issued a statement saying that the Embassy had not cleared the statement before issuing it.

I provide the timeline in an article here that itself has PLENTY to slam about Obama’s pathetic failure.  At the time Romney spoke the embassy statement above was the only official US government statement.  As you can see by looking at the timeline, the initial embassy statement came out around noon EST, and there had been no other statement other than a subsequent statement from the embassy confirming its initial gutless statement documented above.  Romney’s statement came out at 10:25 pm EST; Obama disavowed that embassy statement – 11 hours after it had been issued – at 11:04 pm EST.  And then at 12:11 AM EST the very same Obama who disavowed the statement that Romney attacked and the very same Obama who purged the despicable thing from the internet has the tiny little balls to demonize Mitt Romney for being the first man who wants to be president to repudiate it.

So Mitt Romney comes out and attacks a despicable, weak, pathologically gutless statement that had been the ONLY official statement for half a day while Obama continued to campaign.  And the mainstream media want to make the story – the “news” - about Mitt Romney being the only man to show any kind of presidential leadership whatsoever.  Particularly given that since Romney made the statement, his prescience has only been confirmed.  Because the disaster that he correctly saw on Tuesday is FAR, FAR worse than any of these insipid liberal turds thought it was.  We’ve got the murder of an American ambassador. 

Now, when you consider the fact that an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WAS MURDERED IN A PLANNED ATTACK, does that statement from the United States Embassy in Cairo look strong or does it look WEAK????  Do you know that information and STILL think that we ought to be criticizing an American citizen for exercising his right to make a stupid Youtube video or do you think that maybe some outrage to be directed at the murderers of our ambassador???

As stated, we now know that the Youtube film had NOTHING to do with the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya where our ambassador and four other Americans were murdered.  We now know that what happened was a deliberate, planned, carefully coordinated attack timed to correspond with the 9/11 anniversary that employed the AstroTurf mob as a diversion.  And we now know that Libyan government officials were complicit in the murder of the US ambassador and literally told the murderers where to find him after he relocated to escape the compound.

Does that development make the embassy statement that Romney rightly attacked look bolder, or does that development make it look all the more gutless and cowardly???  Which one???

For the mainstream media to try to make the story about Mitt Romney – who again exercised LEADERSHIP – in attacking the utterly indefensible – is the most blatant and most snivelling and most desperate act of media propaganda that I have ever seen.  And you can search over my blog and see that I’ve documented a BUNCH of media propaganda.

This was Mitt Romney’s statement on a statement from the US Embassy in Cairo that became official Obama policy by his sheer failure to issue anything to replace it with:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Now, who should have come out and issued a statement immediately denouncing that gutless, weak, frankly un-American statement from the US Embassy in Cairo?  It should have been the president.

But instead it was Mitt Romney who exercised presidential leadership.  But the media chose to attack him in a coordinated “gotcha” moment with the pretense and pretext that somehow unlike candidate Obama when HE was running for president Romney doesn’t have the right to criticize the president’s foreign policy.  THAT is what the media chose to focus on to make “the news.”

Did they make the news about the fact that Obama chose to continue campaigning as if nothing had happened?

Obama’s Going to Las Vegas
By Fred Lucas
September 12, 2012  

(Update: In a second schedule update issued around 10:42 a.m. on Wednesday, the White House indicated that President Obama would continue with his campaign trip to Las Vegas after issuing a statement on events in Libya and Egypt in the Rose Garden.

The only change in the updated schedule is this: “Shortly after (the Rose Garden statement), the President and Secretary Clinton will visit the State Department in Washington, DC. This visit is closed press.” The updated schedule still states that “In the afternoon, the President will depart the White House en route Las Vegas, Nevada.”)
( – On the day after the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the White House on Wednesday morning released a schedule showing that President Obama would continue with his planned campaign trip to Las Vegas.
Before he leaves, the schedule indicated, Obama will “deliver a statement” in the White House Rose Garden at 10:35 a.m., the White House said.

As bad as that is, even THAT story turns out to fail to reflect just how cynical and disinterested Obama is in the unfolding disaster involving our embassies/consulates in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and all across the Middle East.  Because it turns out that Obama chose to skp the intelligence briefing, too:

Unreal: On Day Following Libya Assassinations, Obama Skips Another Intel Briefing
Guy Benson, Political Editor,
Sep 13, 2012 03:11 PM EST

Is anyone surprised by this revelation? Our Commander Campaigner-in-Chief has made his priorities crystal clear:

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

On Monday the same Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen, reported that the president has missed 62 percent of his daily in-person intel briefings in 2011 and 2012. President Bush almost never missed a briefing after 9/11. I recognize that a president’s schedule is extremely demanding, especially in the teeth of a campaign, so passing on these meetings occasionally would be understandable. I cannot, however, fathom how the president could justify canceling and not re-scheduling his intelligence briefing the day after an active US Ambassador was murdered in the line of duty, and as an international crisis continues to spread. The White House offers a two-fold defense on this: First, make snide remarks about President Bush, then insist that Obama is so sophisticated that he doesn’t need experts to brief him:

As the article title says, this is positively UN-FREAKING-REAL. 

Why isn’t THAT the “news”???  Other than the fact that this is the most propagandistic media since Joseph Goebbels ran the “news” for his buddy Adolf???

Here are some MORE “Why isn’t THAT ‘news’” questions:

Why isn’t it “news” that NO Marines were guarding the United States Consulate in Libya where US Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WERE DOCUMENTED AND CREDIBLE THREATS??? 

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s State Department had forbidden the Marines at the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt from carrying live ammunition – again, in spite of documented and credible threats???

Why isn’t it “news” that due to Obama’s pathetic failure to protect American assets in spite of documented and credible threats, a US Ambassador was raped BEFORE being murdered???

Why isn’t it “news” that the safe house that the ambassador fled to devoid of any Marine guard???  Not that it would have mattered if they couldn’t have live ammo.

Whyisn’t it “news” that Egypt warned Obama on September 4 of an attack against the US Embassy???

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama said that Egypt – a country that had been an ally for going on forty damn years before Obama toppled Mubarak – was no longer a US ally?

President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

Why isn’t it “news” that the US State Department almost immediately issued a correction saying the president of the United States is an idiot fool and that yes, Egypt is in fact contrary to what the dumbass in chief said, an “ally.”

(  State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that Egypt remains a U.S. ally, despite a statement from the White House that the country is not an ally.

“Yes,” Nuland said during a news conference Thursday, when asked if Egypt was still a U.S. ally.

Why isn’t it news that the Obama Administration frantically tried to put their idiot president’s babbling tongue back into his fool head by doing their own blathering and saying:

“‘Ally’ is a legal term of art.”

The distinction by the White House was so byzantine in trying to argue that Obama WAS TECHNICALLY NOT AN IDIOT that their own language would rule out ISRAEL as an ally:

As Politico’s Byron Tau points out, that would mean other designated major non-NATO allies — including Israel — aren’t technically “allies,” at least according to Obama’s “legal term of art” definition. Complicating matters further is the fact that the term “ally” is in the title of the designation.

Which makes the entire White House idiots.

Why isn’t the Obama acts of dhimmitude (his apologize for America tour, his bowing down before the King of Saudi Arabia, and his increasing the payment to Egypt to $2 billion a year AFTER that country elects the Muslim Brotherhood, and his refusing to cut off that aid even as they openly piss on America “news”???

The MSM had over ten minutes of “coverage” on the “wrongness” of Mitt Romney’s statement versus 20 seconds of “analysis” of Obama’s Middle East policy, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center reported last night on Hannity.  It is beyond amazing.

The US embassies in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen, and in much of the Arab world were well-known to be particularly at risk during the period around the 9/11 anniversary.  But Obama was too damn busy campaigning to protect them.  He was too damn busy campaigning to bother to show up at critical intelligence briefings after they were attacked.  We find that Obama was instrumental in the undermining and overthrow of American ally Hosni Mubarak and that he stupidly declared first that the Muslim Brotherhood would not take over and later that it would not be a bad thing that they had.  Which is to say that the REAL “news” is that Obama should be wearing this ensuing disaster like an albatross around his skinny little weasel neck.

THAT would certainly be the story if George Bush or any Republican were president.  And it would be the story if the mainstream media hadn’t become a pathologically dishonest propaganda machine.

While all this is going on, Obama has refused to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu – and then lied about refusing to meet with him – during a period when Israel is just about to be forced to attack Iran because Obama failed to deal with their nuclear program in any way, shape or form.

I remember well when Obama was constantly demonizing Bush as “the bogeyman” on the one hand and constantly promising that under his messiahship there would be “a new beginning” on the other.  Obama was going to make our enemies love us with his lofty words by repudiating the Bush doctrine of confrontation through strength against America’s enemies.  It’s past time to ask as we look at the entire world erupt into flames how that messianic Obama doctrine is working.  It sure doesn’t seem like it to me.

Yes, Being A Democrat Pretty Much Means Being A Vicious Union Fascist Bully By Proxy

September 12, 2012

We’re hearing about just how vile the teachers union is in Chicago.  But it isn’t just there that unions and in particular teachers unions are evil; it is pretty much anywhere you can shake a stick.

Check out the action in Colorado.

Quote: “‘Our teachers spend lots of time on stopping bullying in schools,’ Stagr wrote. ‘Well, this group could have taught a class in HOW TO BULLY.’”

Quote: “One of the speakers escorted from the meeting reflected on the difficulty of finding a resolution going forward. ‘The tragedy is that most of the protesters never heard the board speak that night,” Hein said. “If we can’t have a dialogue, I’m not sure how we improve things for students.’”

Conclusion: They ARE bullies.  And what we are seeing all over the damn country is that they couldn’t care LESS about improving things for the students.

DeGROW: CO security officials protect parents from union protesters
By Watchdog Staff  /   September 11, 2012
By Ben DeGrow | Special to Colorado Watchdog

Last Wednesday’s Adams 12 School Board meeting packed the house with union protesters, while security officers escorted three residents from the boardroom to their vehicles to ensure their protection.

The offense? Two of the residents openly and respectfully took exception with the District Twelve Educators Association’s loudly projected point of view concerning the board’s proposal to balance the budget. Teacher pension contributions are being increased to align with other employee groups, resulting in a net pay reduction of 1.5 percent.

Adams 12 is Colorado’s fifth largest school district, with nearly 43,000 students enrolled last year. DTEA is one of the larger affiliates of the Colorado Education Association, which reports having lost roughly 8 percent of its membership in the past two years.

Nearly 400 teachers — including many from six other area school districts — showed up at Wednesday’s board meeting to protest the suburban Denver board’s decision. The school board made the move when adopting the new budget June 20. On Aug. 24, DTEA distributed a flier through its building representatives alerting members of the decision.

Several pro-union speakers provided public comments to applause from the crowd, claiming the board had violated the collective-bargaining agreement.

But two other attendees rose to offer a different view.

District taxpayer Joseph Hein, who has attended numerous board meetings this year, mentioned the extra burdens parents have taken from recent cuts made to transportation and middle school sports. He then gently urged the District 12 teachers in attendance to listen carefully to the board’s response. “You guys are part of the solution, as well,” he said, while union members waved signs from the crowd.

Sara Colburn, mother of three Adams 12 students, also pleaded with those in attendance. “You need to realize that you are not the only people hurting right now. I guarantee you that families have made many more sacrifices than you have,” she said, prompting most of the union members in the crowd to file out of the boardroom — some booing, many clapping rhythmically — as she concluded her remarks.

“We sat there and we listened to what they had to say,” Colburn later explained. “As soon as they heard something they didn’t like or didn’t agree with, I guess they felt like they didn’t owe me the same courtesy.”

Afterward, the school district’s head of security approached the speakers out of concern for their safety. “(He) told me he thought it probably would be a good idea if he took us to our cars,” said Colburn. “He said all those people that had cleared out were outside the front doors waiting for us.”

The security officer escorted Colburn and her husband through a separate exit to the back of the building, where he then drove them to their vehicle in the main parking lot. Plain-clothes security officers walked Hein to his car, out of the same concern.

“I was taken aback by the intensity of the protest,” Hein later said. “It was a bit disturbing to be escorted out of the building for my protection.”

Another Adams 12 parent, Patty Stagr, sent a note to the superintendent and school board after the meeting indicating she opted not to speak on behalf of taxpayers because she felt “intimidated by the aggressive nature of” union protesters making displays of “disrespect.” She refused to answer one teacher’s inquiry into where her children attend school.

“Our teachers spend lots of time on stopping bullying in schools,” Stagr wrote. “Well, this group could have taught a class in HOW TO BULLY.”

These accounts, many of which are directly supported by video evidence, contradict the report of one DTEA official quoted by local news reporter Darin Moriki:

“There was no anger or hostility among those people who came tonight,” said Missy Salter, a District 12 Educators’ Association executive board member and Shadow Ridge Middle School sixth-grade mathematics teacher.

Very few of the union protesters remained to hear the board’s response. Director Norm Jennings explained how state law required the adoption of a budget before June 30. He argued that the board’s actions did not violate the union contract, and that cutting teacher compensation was a difficult but necessary decision.

“We are not going to create further budget problems that impact our kids even further later on by taking the easy road now,” Jennings said.

Having reached an impasse in collective-bargaining negotiations, Adams 12 and DTEA await the report of a fact finder due out later this fall.

One of the speakers escorted from the meeting reflected on the difficulty of finding a resolution going forward. “The tragedy is that most of the protesters never heard the board speak that night,” Hein said. “If we can’t have a dialogue, I’m not sure how we improve things for students.”

It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about the fascist Occupy Movement, the fascist unions, or the fascist Obama.  And of course the fascist Obama protects the fascist unions and the fascist Occupy Movement even as they break the law.  They’re thugs who will not and cannot listen to any competing idea.  And rank and file Democrats are part of the vicious machine.

Democrats keep idiotically voting for these fascist fools.  Which is why we’re on the verge of total, catastrophic collapse.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers