The seizures of the American Sailors by Iran...

This is a quick rant....well kinda a quick rant by me.  I will add a post by Matt Bracken to bolster what I am saying.  Once I heard of this I immediately knew this was an attempt for Iran to humiliate the United States, especially before the State of the Union address.  Once I heard that we had "lost contact" with BOTH boats...this stank of 6 day old fish...They got jumped and communications jammed in the middle of the ocean.  No way both boats would have a "mechanical" breakdown the odds of this happening at the same time is the same as me winning the powerball.

  I believe that the Iranians orchestrated this and President Obama and John Kerry  so wanting a legacy involving the Iranians totally surrendered to the Iranians....Makes great propaganda for the locals.  Iran wants us out of the Persian Gulf.  Remember the undeclared war we fought in the late 80's with them, The Iranians would mine the shipping lanes and shoot silkworm missiles at Oil Tankers.  We in retaliation shot up several of their oil platforms and captured an Iranian dhow full of mines.  We have traversed that area for many years and I am sure that the Iranians knew our shipping schedules.  I am just an Army guy, but this seizures of American sailors is designed to make us look weak and ineffective and with the current denizen on the white house, they are succeeding.

I am cutting and pasting this article from Matt Bracken.

Matt Bracken in the 80's

I rarely pull out my dusty old trident, but in this case, here goes. I was a Navy SEAL officer in the 1980s, and this kind of operation (transiting small boats in foreign waters) was our bread and butter. Today, these boats both not only had radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters that place your boat's icon right on the chart. The claim by Iran that the USN boats "strayed into Iranian waters" is complete bull$#it.

For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation's claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that's why two boats go on these trips and not one! It's called "self-rescue" and it's SOP.

This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a "hands up!" situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America's face.

Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken.

The "strayed into Iranian waters" story being put out by Iran and our groveling and appeasing State Dept. is utter and complete BS from one end to the other.

Summnation of the SOTU address by President Obama

This is my opinion of the subject matter of the State of the Union Address by President Obama....

  I have been working the Overtime, I hope to post some pic of what we are working on.

If I was the royalty in Saudi Arabia I would be thinking "Aw crap"

  Well I will have a few pithy comments, I am going camping again with the boy Scouts this weekend.   It almost feels like the U.S. Army where I spend a lot of time in the field.  

     there is a lot going on in the middle east, and I do squarely blame the President for the chaos in the middle East.   It all started with the "Arab Spring" back in 2009 and the President earlier had gone to the University in Cairo and talked about the great reset in U.S and Muslim relations and basically apologized to the world for all the baaaaaaaad things that the United States has done and that the Muslims shouldn't hate us anymore.  Right after that the Arab spring erupted, and the President basically had an hands off policy and voiced support for the "people" while long time American allies were besieged by radicals.  he supported the radicals/Muslim Brotherhood against Mobarak in Egypt and everywhere else.  And when there was an uprising against the mad mullah's in Iran, President Obama was strangely quiet, I think his handler Valerie Jarrett his senior adviser who is Iranian probably told his to not do anything so the pro freedom group in Iran collapsed. 
    President Obama isn't the only person I blame for the chaos in the middle east, I also blame the Royal House of Saud, they espouse publicly a radical form of Islam called Wahhabism.  To keep peace inside the kingdom, they throw a lot of money at the radicals inside their borders to export that sect of Islam to the other places.  All these places that where there is grinding poverty and no real education possibilities, they set up these religious schools to educate and indoctrinate the illiterate and the poor.  Now those chickens are coming back to roost.  also you have the Iranians in the mix, they are wanting to be the power player in the region, and that means getting rid of the United States.  It also isn't good that the Soviets Russians recently signed a trade agreement.  
     Now Saudi Arabia had her king die, they had an assassination on a General in her Army who was visiting the border area, this shows that ISIS had good intel on the movements of the general so that makes me wonder how many have infiltrated her armed services.  Also the radicals believe that the House of Saud are corrupt and apostates and not deserving the "honor" of protecting and representing the 2 holiest cities of Islam.   The government in Yemen collapsed, and they share the peninsula and the border.   the Suez canal and the straits of Hormuz are in danger of being closed up. I can see a major uprising in the kingdom this spring and the price of oil to shoot up.   And President Obama will be busy doing his favorite pastime.

   We live in interesting times........

The Bengazi hearings...some food for thoughts....

I have started to finally see the Bengazi scandal finally start to move.  Why it wasn't investigated earlier, the mainstream media is to blame, they had to cover for "The One".  This helped his reelection chances that they were able to bury the facts and push the Obama agenda that it was some video that got the Muslims pissed off and not al-queda.

 The mainstream media has shamelessly carried his water for 6 years and maybe there will be some integrity with the media.....But I doubt it.

   This is from the American Thinker

Though they may publicly deny that there is any scandal in the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, there must be doubts emerging, if only because we now know with certainty that a critical email was withheld in violation of a subpoena from the Issa Committee. Though most Democrats loathe Darrel Issa (and the entire Republican Party, for that matter), the expression “cover-up” is now in play, and the senior Congressional leadership of the party is old enough to remember the Watergate hearings, and the articles of impeachment that emerged from that process, authored in part by a young committee staffer named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Article 1 cited as part of the justification for impeachment:

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

In Watergate, keep in mind, the underlying crime was a “third-rate burglary,” while in Benghazi, it is a terror attack, the murder of an ambassador and three guards, the desecration of their flag-draped caskets with a lie from the sitting Secretary of State as to the perpetrators, and the continuing failure of the federal government to bring to justice their killers because the Pentagon’s hands have been tied by the failure of the administration to name the perpetrators as members of Al Qaeda. These matters are far more consequential than a misbegotten intelligence-gathering operation.

The mainstream media has been acting as a cofferdam around the story, limiting its impact to the Fox News and conservative blogosphere ghetto. But with a Select Committee about to be created, professional prosecutorial staff to be hired and deployed, depositions of officials, including Mrs. Clinton, to be taken for however many hours or days are required, and more emails and other documents known to exist and eventually to be released, more news will be created.

At this point, the competitive instincts of the journalism pack may be released, at least among some who have not completely signed on to the proposition that The First Black President must be protected at all costs. Last week saw an Alphabet Network White House Correspondent, Jonathan Karl of ABC News, pursue Jay Carney with a zeal that would do Fox News, The Washington Times, or The American Thinker proud. Always lurking in the back of the minds of many professional journalists is the fear of getting scooped on The Big One, even if they wish the story didn’t exist.

Sharyl Attkisson may have left CBS News, which has its own dilemma to deal with on the Benghazi story, but she is far from silenced, with a book in process and a keen sense of righteous concern.

That media cofferdam may be springing more leaks, which in turn means that this story could build in an accelerating crescendo toward an election that is half a year away. Quietly, in many cases subconsciously, Congressional Democrats have got to be wondering if the SS Obama is a sinking ship, and if so, whether they want to be on it.

The immediate question is: do they follow the suggestion of California Democrat Adam Schiff and boycott the Select Committee, hoping that they can thus tar it as a completely partisan operation. There is considerable danger for such a hardline approach. First of all, the committee will go on with them or without them, so whatever evidence is produced through its investigation will be aired. With even Speaker Boehner, an accommodationist of the first order, on board, Democrats can be certain that Republicans are not about to abandon ship.

The greater risk is that boycotting the hearings, Democrats could be seen as implicating themselves in the cover-up. As much as they publicly affirm their love and support for President Obama, many Congressional Democrats are highly cognizant of two facts:

1. His signature legislation has put many of them at risk in the 2014 election. Without ObamaCare, incumbents like Mary Landrieu could have sailed to re-election. But now their base is disheartened and the opposition energized
2. President Obama is no longer trusted by the electorate to tell the truth. As the laureate of the Politifact Lie of Year award, skepticism over his forthcoming defenses for whatever the Select Committee will be legitimate. “Trust me” is an inadequate argument.

For the moment, these doubts, suspicions, and worries will remain silent, operating privately and often subconsciously. The first sign we will get will be the reaction to Schiff’s boycott call.

But it is time for self-preservation instincts to come to the fore. Almost nobody who doesn’t call Delaware home wants to see a President Biden, and impeachment of The First Black President remains virtually unthinkable. But cautious distancing may be in order for Democrats.

Meanwhile, Senator Elizabeth Warren will be watching Hillary Clinton, so deeply implicated in the Benghazi lead-up and aftermath, to see if she follows the advice of her friend Tina Brown, an opinion leader of sorts among the fashionable progressives, and decides that politics may not be worth the trouble. Benghazi could be the end of more than one political career.

I suppose it could be just a coincidence that as Benghazigate explodes, bigtime Hillary Clinton supporter Tina Brown publishes a Daily Beast article imploring her not to run for president.

The political world and her most fervent fans may be exercised about a presidential bid. But she should forget it. If she wins, it's too much stress for too little return.

I know as much as anyone, how much her most fervent supporters want Hillary Clinton to run for president. On the opening night of the Women in the World Summit the mere mention of the possibility had the audience on their feet. The fan base is there, and constituencies beyond it. (snip)

The first black president was a hotter plot line than the first woman president. Bad luck for Hillary. Obama stole her exceptionalism, leaving the press only with the hair, the alleged cackling laugh, and the over-familiar back-story, which meant dogging Bill around, hoping he'd lose it once in a while. (He obliged.)  

    That phrase “alleged cackling laugh” is a hoot. Is it a warning shot? An attempt to seem fair and balanced? A tease from a friend?

If Hillary doesn’t run, she is going to need a cover story, explaining why it isn’t because of Benghazigate. She’s already got a grandchild bun in the oven. Now comes Tina B with another reason.

Foreign Policy regarding Russia

This is a tough post, despite the humor,
     The Ukraine is getting robbed by Russia and the world stands by and does nothing.   The pisser is that they were expecting us to help.  Back in 1994 when the Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms, it was in the promise that we and Europe would help them if they ever got attacked.  Well they are getting attacked and we and the Europeans folded like a camp chair(interesting analogy for that describes the messiah), but I digress.  Well in 2009 when Obungler sent Hillery to do a "reset" of our relations and it didn't work.  Obama unilaterally pulled a missile shield from Poland and Eastern Europe with no concessions from the Russians.

well Obama also promised Putin that he would have more flexibility after the 2012 election and he does.  He has thrown our ally and our promise in the dirt,  I doubt any other nation will believe anything we say.  Politically, the Ukraine is next door to Russia so it is easier for them to get there than we can.  But after 13 years of war, our equipment is tired and wore out as our troops, and there is no political will to step up and help.  The last country that we promised to help in case they were attacked was South Vietnam and we know how that went.

What happened was that the North invaded the South to unify the country, despite the treaty commitments we had with the South Vietnamese, The Anti-war democrats were firmly ensconced in the Congress, And the political will wasn't there, Gerald Ford had replaced Richard Nixon whom had narrowly avoided impeachment by resigning, the funny thing is that Obama has done far worse than Nixon and the congress refuses to push through impeachment hearings, mostly because the democrats control the senate and that is where the hearing would be held at. 
     Well after 5 years of Obama and trillions of debt, we are much lessened as a country, and we refuse to honor treaty commitments because Obama is only vicious to the GOP, and the media will cover for him, but overseas the media isn't so in love or have soo much invested in the messiah so they tend to report the truth, not the fantasy that is spun by the propaganda arm of the Democrats Mainstream Media. 

After this, I doubt any other country will trust the United States to keep its word, and I guess that is by design since Obama has promised "hope and change" and we have been changed as a nation, and not for the better.