Could You Be Part of the Petraeus Scandal?

How to tell if you might be involved in the Petraeus Affair

As the  Petraeus  scandal widens day by day, and in response to a high volume of panicked phone calls from the general public, the C.I.A. has published a new informational brochure entitled “How to Tell if You’re Involved in the Petraeus Scandal.”

The C.I.A. rushed to produce the brochure after it became clear that as many as one in one thousand Americans may have some involvement in the Petraeus affair.

“A lot of average folks out there are worried that they might somehow be involved in it without knowing,” says Gale Wicker, director of the C.I.A.’s public-information office. “This booklet should clear up a lot misunderstandings”she said.  It includes a “simple, user-friendly checklist” that should help people determine whether they are at risk for being implicated in the scandal. Here is a sample from the brochure:

“Have you ever met David Petraeus?  Have you ever been alone with David Petraeus?  Have you ever received and/or sent shirtless photos of an F.B.I. agent? Have you ever exchanged e-mails with Jill Kelley? (Under one thousand pages of e-mails and you’re probably O.K., but anywhere between five thousand and fifteen thousand pages of e-mails could potentially mean you're involved in some way). Have you or anyone else ever yelled  "INCOMING" while in the act of making love? Are there any unusual clicking sounds on your telephone line?  Do you see strange white vans parked near your home? 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said today that he expected the Petraeus scandal to wind down by early 2015 but would not commit to an official timetable. 

Also, former President Bill Clinton today issued a denial of any knowledge of Paula Broadwell or Jill Kelley, just in case. 

_____________________________________________________ 

FORWARD!

   iMakism.com

_______________________

The Joy of Being Uninformed

DiploMad 2.0

"Mark Twain generally gets credit for, "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." Predating that piece of century-plus old wisdom by another century or so, we have Thomas Jefferson's still relevant observation that, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

This got me thinking about the joy of living the uninformed life.

Temporarily in California, I run into Obama voters galore, and occasionally ask them, especially the wealthy ones, why they voted for Obama. The answers prove very mixed. They don't really know why, except, well, he is black, and against the "war on women," etc. They have no remedies for the imploding economy or the collapsing federal government. They only vaguely know of Benghazi, and most haven't heard of "Fast and Furious." They already complain about high taxes--and the election saw yet another state income tax raise passed by voters here--but don't seem very aware of what's bearing down on them in the next few months.

They, in other words, live like H.G. Wells' Eloi, wealthy, happy, healthy, and blissfully unaware of the Morlocks about to eat them. Maybe, however, that's the way to go: Driving your Lexus to the Morlocks' slaughterhouse with a smile on your face."

_____________________________________________

Linden Borden: A Retrospective

From Capitalist Preserevation

A Man for Our Time: Linden Borden. We Got Screwed!

__________________________________

Obama Considering Earl of Ketchup for Defense Secretary

Sen. John Kerry - Heinz (D-Mass)

Keeping with his theme of America as a defender of freedom and a Military Power in the world, the Washington Post  hints President Obama is considering the appointment of The Duke of Heinz / The Earl of Ketchup - U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) to the cabinet office of Secretary of Defense.

One of the wealthy 1%, Sen.Kerry, a Navy veteran turned anti-war activist and critic of the use of the military by Reagan, Bush 41 and 43, campaigned for the presidency in part against Bush 43's efforts at waging of war on terror (while never criticizing the bombing of civilians during Clinton's misuse of the air force in Kosovo and ignoring the rivers of Rwanda running red with blood and headless bodies). Testifying in 1970 to a Senate Committee, he accused the US of war crimes.  

Before his anti-war days, Sen. Kerry spent a four-month tour of duty in Vietnam receiving 3 Purple Hearts from a grateful nation for wounds, including shooting himself in the leg and the most serious suffered using an MRE can opener in Saigon in 1969. It is believed he was sent home for his own protection.....

With a former first lady as Secretary of State and Senator Kerry as Defense Secretary I'm sure our enemies in the world will certainly fear America enough to behave themselves while we fix our own problems here at home.  

_____________________________________________

Starry Starry Nights......

_____________________________________________

No More Dodging Benghazi

LFR

It’s time for President Obama, Secretary Clinton, CIA Director Petraeus and Defense Secretary Panetta to be grilled extensively on their decisions, or lack thereof, during the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2012. We don’t want this hearing to be about a ton of peripheral topics. Citizen journalists will sort through Susan Rice’s and Jay Carney’s spin.

This shouldn’t even be about President Obama attending a Vegas fundraiser the day after the terrorist attacks. Again, that’s something citizen journalists can sort through. Here are the things this hearing must be about:

* Who was the first senior administration official to get real time reports from the consulate the day of the terrorist attack? Did this senior administration official report this immediately to President Obama? If not, why not?

* When did President Obama’s national security team first tell him about the terrorist attack? Was this during his afternoon meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta the day of the terrorist attack?

* During his meeting with Secretary Panetta, did President Obama order Panetta to send troops to protect the diplomatic staff in Benghazi? If he didn’t order protection for these American patriots during his meeting with Secretary Panetta, did President Obama order military support later in the day? If not, why not?

* Secretary Panetta said that he didn’t send troops in because they didn’t know what they’d be jumping into. Mike Baker dispelled that myth by saying the CIA and military are receiving a “glut of information” in real time from the CIA, specifically the Global Response Staff. Did Secretary Panetta recommend to President Obama that the military jump into the firefight/terrorist attack? If he did, what was President Obama’s response? If he didn’t, why didn’t he make that recommendation?

* When did Charlene Lamb first tell Hillary Clinton about the terrorist attack? When she was told about the terrorist attack, did Ms. Clinton immediately contact President Obama? If not, why not? If she did, what time was it that she contacted him?

* President Obama was the only person with the constitutional authority to order troop deployments during an act of war. Terrorist attacks on American consulates are without question acts of war. Did he order spec-ops troops to be deployed to Benghazi to protect the diplomats from the terrorist attack? If he didn’t, why didn’t he?

These hearings need to start with focusing in on a single subject so the American people get a detailed understanding of President Obama’s national security team operations and his decisions to protect or not protect Christopher Stevens and his diplomatic staff.

Once that base of information is established and the American people understand President Obama’s failings, then the hearings can expand into other areas. Until then, they must stay focused.

_________________________________________________________

A Good Monday Morning

________________________________________________

Okay, Lets Raise Taxes!

After Obama carried 8 out of the 10 riches counties in the country, obviously they don't mind their taxes being raised (even though I doubt they were thinking it would really happen while standing in the voting booth). And of course, Obama carried California and New York state, the homes of some of the most wealthy Americans (not to mention most of the hypocritical leftist entertainment and media industry). So here it comes, like a train with a head of steam. Debt Reduction... 

Business Insider:

"Reverting to pre-Bush tax rates on incomes above $250,000 – as the President and many Democrats have long advocated – would raise about $1 trillion over the next ten years. In order to achieve approximately the same amount of deficit reduction, the limitation on deductions would have to be set at 15%. In other words, taxpayers in marginal tax brackets above 15% would lose some of the benefit of their itemized deductions. Obviously, such a change would have the greatest impact on taxpayers in high brackets with a lot of deductions. In particular, the limitation on deductions would hit taxpayers in high tax states – such as NY and California – particularly hard......."

Personally, I am in a high tax bracket, I own my own business.  Fortunately, it's a fairly recession proof business so I'm prepared to absorb a small hit. 

So Mr. Speaker, let's just forget your tepid support for the Tea Party and grow a pair. Mr. Boehner, double down on B-Rock and propose raising taxes at a much greater rate than him. Let's see how Mr. Schumer and Ms. Gillibrand of NY, and Mrs. Boxer and Feinstein,  and former speaker Nancy Piccolo of California vote and explain that to their constituents.

Yeah, the wealth will have a little less to put into their over educated slacker kids trust funds....but I think they'll survive.

____________________________________________