Obama, a walking cluster@#(k as commander in chief

1 Comment

This is from Bullets First.



As I was talking with a friend last night he asked if Obama could be playing so stupid as to be brilliant.

I assured him it was no act.  The man is just a craven, cowardly America hating, soldier resenting socialist with dreams to diminish the American spirit to the point that we forgo our entrepreneurial spirit and become beholden to the government for all our needs.
In case you haven’t noticedI’m a little peeved with his highness, King Barack.

As a former soldier, the recent stories that have been making the headlines recently have resonated with me in both their absurdity and the disgraceful manner in which the Commander in Chief has reacted to both.

On one hand you have Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi whose only true crime was getting lost in the desert and being found by Mexicans.  Despite what the Sanctuary City crowd would have you believe, there are plenty of open spaces on the Mexico border without any fences or signs that state what country you were in.

It’s actually really easy to simply be on the wrong side of the border taking a drive.  Unfortunately for Andrew Tahmooressi, he happened to have with him his legally owned firearms. Mexico, being the bastion of peace and stability that it is thanks to their staunch gun control policy arrested Tahmooressi on the spot and threw him in jail where he is beaten and bullied by his captors.

On the the other hand you have a walking pile of cow feces named Bowe Bergdahl who deserted his unit in a time of war to go on a walkabout in Afghanistan to join up with the Taliban.  His former unit members have come forward and attested to his desertion and subsequent role in the deaths of 7 soldiers trying to retrieve him.

So what does Commander in Chief Barack Obama do?  He lets Andrew Tahmooressi ROT in a Mexican jail while trading FIVE Taliban Terrorists in order have Bergdahl returned with Obama regaling him as a hero.

And I don’t for one second believe that Obama doesn’t know the facts about the case as he will undoubtedly claim when Bergdahl’s desertion and disgrace becomes full knowledge to the general public.  Obama thinks that Bergdahl IS a hero.  The truth is that Bergdahl should be tried for desertion and SHOT if found guilty for directly leading to the deaths of 7 fellow soldiers.

Obama also thinks that gun owners are all criminals and that is why he has sat in the White House with his thumb up his but while Tahmooressi is beaten and tortured in a Mexican Jail.  Though I guess if Tahmooressi was running guns FOR Obama in the Fast and Furious scheme it would’ve been ok.

Hey, here’s an idea, why don’t we trade 5 THOUSAND illegal Mexican Immigrants for Tahmooressi’s release?

At least the Mexican’s most likely crime will be to try and reenter the US.  The Taliban Terrorists next crime could kill thousands.

Reallywhat the hell is going on in Barack Obama’s head?

People often compare him to Jimmy Carter.  I think that is unfairto Carter.  The peanut farmer was a terrible president but at least he had his heart in the right place and people believed that he loved America.  With Barack Obama, I question not only his competence but also whether he actually has the best interest of America at heart.

If he doesn’t than our system of government has failed because we put a man at the top of the Military, Judicial and Executive branches of government where he runs all three through dismissals, appointments and fiats via executive orders.

If America must suffer under the tyranny of a king I would have at least wished it was a king who liked this country even a little.



EDITORIAL: Notre Dame philosophy professor: ‘Most of us don’t have a good reason to keep guns in our homes’

Leave a comment

This is from

These are the types of liberal propagandist that are teaching

in our institutes of higher learning.

They have even infiltrated the elementary,junior and

senior high schools.

More reasons to homeschool your children.


“Should I own a gun?”

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (Photo Credit: NY Times)

                                                  Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (Photo Credit: NY Times)


That is the question that Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, asks in a recent New York Times opinion piece.

His conclusion to that question is, as one might expect from an academic at an elite university, pretty predictable. He writes, “Once we balance the potential harms and goods, most of us — including many current gun owners — don’t have a good reason to keep guns in their homes.”

He arrives at this conclusion after suggesting that “guns are dangerous” and that the net effect of owning one has the potential to create more harm than good, even if one has a firearm for the sole purpose of self-defense within the home.

“I may panic and shoot a family member coming home late, fumble around and allow an unarmed burglar to take my gun, have a cleaning or loading accident,” Gutting imagines.

He also dismisses the idea that firearms are needed to protect against a tyrannical government, noting that resistance against our military would be futile.

“Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy,” he said. “The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy.”

Furthermore, he argues that hunting is now largely recreational, no longer the primary means by which a family sources food. As such, firearms don’t need to be kept at home, but can be secured elsewhere.

“Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition were securely stored away from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season,” he states. “Target shooting, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home.”

Ultimately Gutting hinges one’s Second Amendment right not on the premise of personal choice of a citizen living in a free society, but on need. Do you actually need a firearm?

He writes, “It’s easier to get people to see that they don’t want something than that they don’t have a right to it. Focusing on the need rather than the right to own a gun, many may well conclude that for them a gun is more a danger than a protection. Those fewer guns will make for a safer country.”

It’s a very seductive rhetorical approach to the debate. And quite truthfully, it’s effective. When one thinks about it, and theoretically speaking, no one really needs a gun. On a day to day basis in most parts of the country, one can function just fine without a firearm.

However, just because I don’t need a firearm, doesn’t mean I don’t want one. I want a firearm because I don’t want to be a victim. I don’t want to get mugged, raped or murdered. It’s that simple. I can live day-to-day without a gun, but should I ever find myself in a life-threatening situation, I want a firearm handy so that I stand a chance at defending myself, my family and my property.

Sure, I can carry other arms (such as knives) for self-defense, but I want the most effective tool available, which happens to be a firearm.

It should also be said that one can play the ‘need’ game with any right or privilege. I don’t really need a car, do I? After all, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which causes global warming (allegedly), which is a threat to humanity, I can find other modes of transportation that would reduce my carbon footprint, public and private sources (metros). I can also carpool with someone else, purchase a bike or walk to where I need to go.

Likewise, people really don’t need free speech. Do we? The government can pretty much can tell us all we need to know, can’t it? People in North Korea live under a regime that imposes censorship and they’re surviving, aren’t they (a perfect example of what happens when a government determines the needs of the people vs. the people determining the needs of the government)?

Anyways, you see where I’m going with that line of reasoning. Aside from food, shelter, clothing, there’s not much a human being really ‘needs’ to live on planet earth.

I should also note that statistically speaking, guns are used more by law-abiding citizens in self-defense situations than they are used by criminals or mentally-deranged sociopaths. So, the notion that owning a firearm is a net danger or threat to the average, responsible individual is untenable.

As a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released back in June found, “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed.

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” it stated.

So, there you go. Do you need a gun? No. Should you have one? Yeah, I think so. But then again, it’s up to you to deicide, something I suppose both Gutting and I agree on.

Your thoughts?


No Ma’am

Leave a comment

Hat tip to The Outrider.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,




I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.





Trashing Tricare

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Free Deacon. 

One more example Obama despises the military.

We owe the military for their service and for any disabilities while serving.

The veterans have put their lives on hold to keep us free.

They suffer both physical and mental disabilities and even die.

So we owe them more than we could ever repay.


Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“When they talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind,” said a congressional aide involved in the issue.

Military personnel from several of the armed services voiced their opposition to a means-tested tier system for Tricare, prompting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to issue a statement Feb. 21.

Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion.

“I want those of you who serve and who have served to know that we’ve heard your concerns, in particular your concern about the tiered enrollment fee structure for Tricare in retirement,” Dempsey said. “You have our commitment that we will continue to review our health care system to make it as responsive, as affordable, and as equitable as possible.”

Under the new plan, the Pentagon would get the bulk of its savings by targeting under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees through a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on yearly retirement pay.

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.

The changes are worrying some in the Pentagon who fear it will severely impact efforts to recruit and maintain a high-quality all-volunteer military force. Such benefits have been a key tool for recruiting qualified people and keeping them in uniform.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” said the congressional aide. “Would anybody accept their taxes being raised 345 percent in five years? Probably not.”

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

Spokesmen for the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not respond to requests for comment on the Tricare increases.

The massive increases beginning next year appear timed to avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year, critics of the plan say.

Additionally, the critics said leaving civilian workers’ benefits unchanged while hitting the military reflect the administration’s effort to court labor unions, as government unions are the only segment of organized labor that has increased in recent years.

As part of the increased healthcare costs, the Pentagon also will impose an annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, a new program that all military retirees automatically must join at age 65. Currently, to enroll in Tricare for Life, retirees pay the equivalent of a monthly Medicare premium.

Under the proposed Pentagon plan, retirees will be hit with an additional annual enrollment fee on top of the monthly premium.

Congressional aides said that despite unanimous support among the military chiefs for the current healthcare changes, some senior officials in the Pentagon are opposing the reforms, in particular the tiered system of healthcare.

“It doesn’t matter what the benefit is, whether it’s commissary, PX, or healthcare, or whatever … under the rationale that if you raise your hand and sign up to serve, you earn a base set of benefits, and it should have nothing to do with your rank when you served, and how much you’re making when you retire,” the first aide said.

Military service organizations are opposing the healthcare changes and say the Pentagon is “means-testing” benefits for service personnel as if they were a social program, and not something earned with 20 or more years of military service.

Retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley, of the Military Officers Association of America, said the Military Coalition, 32 military service and veterans groups with an estimated 5 million members, is fighting the proposed healthcare increases, specifically the use of mean-testing for cost increases.

“We think it’s absolutely wrong,” Beasley told the Free Beacon. “This is a breach of faith” for both the active duty and retiree communities.

Congressional hearings are set for next month.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars on Feb. 23 called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the healthcare increases.

“There is no military personnel issue more sacrosanct than pay and benefits,” said Richard L. DeNoyer, head of the 2 million-member VFW. “Any proposal that negatively impacts any quality of life program must be defeated, and that’s why the VFW is asking everyone to join the fight and send a united voice to Congress.”

Senior Air Force leaders are expected to be asked about the health care cost increases during a House Armed Services Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday.

Congress must pass all the proposed changes into law, as last year’s defense authorization bill preemptively limited how much the Pentagon could increase some Tricare fees, while other fees already were limited in law.

Tricare for Life, Tricare Prime, and Tricare Standard increases must be approved, as well as some of the pharmacy fee increases, congressional aides said.

Current law limits Tricare fee increases to cost of living increases in retirement pay.





Happy Birthday Devil Dogs

Leave a comment

I want to say Happy Birthday to The United States Marine Corps.

The best way to honor them is with a picture of Chesty Puller.

Lt.General Lewis B.Chesty Puller is the only Marine with 5 Navy Crosses.

Lt.General Chesty Puller was a man’s man.

I want to close by saying “Goodnight Chesty Puller where ever you are.”

Semper Fi Devil Dogs.



Happy Birthday Devil Dogs

1 Comment


236 Years Old and Going Strong.
Thank-You and May God Bless and keep you safe.

When you need it done right send the Marines


%d bloggers like this: