Military Officers owe no allegiance to the POTUS (President of the United States). The enlisted oath alludes to the office.
However, read it carefully and you can see they won’t obey Obama if we tell them not to.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
 Enlisted Oath“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).Officer Oath“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

Not a mention of the President of the United States.  What is understood need not be discussed.


The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. But they won’t release it.

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama’s order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. “The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials,” the newspaper reported. “The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”

Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”

Obama hasn’t just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It’s time for the president who promised to create “a White House that’s more transparent and accountable than anything we’ve seen before” to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, “The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion.” And then there’s the fact that “a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department — rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example — had gone out the door along with the Bush administration,” he adds. “But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution’s restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers’ arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine.” What doesn’t he want to get out?


Every normal man must be tempted,at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken

U.S drone crashes in Seychelles

Dec 13 (Reuters) – A U.S. drone aircraft crashed at Seychelles International Airport on Tuesday, the U.S. embassy in Mauritius said.

“A U.S. Air Force remote-piloted MQ-9 crashed at the Seychelles International Airport in Mahe. The MQ-9 was not armed and no injuries were reported,” the embassy said in a statement.

The Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority (SCAA) confirmed the incident and said that the plane was on a “routine patrol” and had crashed because of mechanical failure.

The U.S. embassy did not comment on the plane’s mission and said that the cause of the crash was unknown.

Iran announced on Dec. 4 it had downed a U.S. drone in the eastern part of the country, near Afghanistan. It has since shown the plane on television and said it is close to cracking its technological secrets.


Military Detention: Not Only Legally Flawed, but Inefficient and Expensive


Ever since President George W. Bush decided to militarize the detention and prosecution of Islamist terrorists, supporters of that decision have claimed that dealing with terrorists as prisoners of war is “tougher” than using F.B.I. agents, Justice Department prosecutors and federal courts.

Charging them in civilian courts, the argument goes, usually with a sneer, amounts to coddling terrorists. And it puts them under the jurisdiction of a court system that is designed to provide due process and protect individual rights. Oh, the horror.

Some of this is political gamesmanship, intended to cow members of Congress into passing laws that steadily erode everyone’s civil liberties, including those of Americans, and to excuse outlaw programs like warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, and even the abuse and torture of prisoners. (For former Vice President Dick Cheney, the detention issue also complemented a broader ideological struggle to expand the authority of the presidency at the expense of Congress and the courts.)

Many people, of course, have a sincere belief that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, changed everything and that the United States has to consider itself in a perpetual state of war to stay safe.

I think they’re wrong.

As I have argued here, and on the editorial page, the federal courts and prisons are not only the right way legally to deal with most terrorism cases, but also the best way practically. Take a look at an article in the Times over the weekend by Scott Shane, on an aggressive federal prosecution strategy implemented after the Sept. 11 attacks, which has resulted in scores of long sentences, in maximum-security prisons.

Scott reported that there are today 171 prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Yet there have been only a handful of cases brought against detainees there by a military tribunal system that the Obama administration improved, but which is still deeply flawed and ineffective.

Compare that to the federal system, which is currently holding 362 people convicted in terrorism-related cases, 260 of them with what the federal Bureau of Prisons says is a connection to international terrorism. These people were tried and convicted by the American justice system, not the extra-judicial concoction that has caused untold harm to America’s global reputation.

Sentences are long, imprisonment conditions are tough, and recidivism rates are low. According to the Center on Law and Security, 87 percent of 204 people charged with serious Jihadist crimes since the Sept. 11 attacks were convicted and got an average sentence of 14 years.

So the federal prison system seems to work, efficiently. Guantanamo does not. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that the Senate and the House have passed a bill that would take most of the anti-terrorism effort out of the hands of federal authorities and turn it over to the military. A bill, by the way, that the F.B.I., the intelligence agencies, the Justice Department and the Pentagon believe will hinder anti-terrorism efforts.

I suppose the bill’s defenders would argue that, despite everything Scott’s article lays out, the military system is still better, because the president can hold prisoners at Guantanamo for as long as hostilities continue (meaning forever), without a pesky trial.

But there is a price to pay for the military system, quite literally. According to Scott Shane’s article, a federal maximum-security inmate costs $25,000 a year. At Guantanamo Bay, each detainee costs $800,000 a year.


Patrick Cockburn: Wars without victory equal an America without influence

World View: For all its military might, the US has failed to get its way in Afghanistan and Iraq, severely denting the prestige of the world’s only superpower

Sunday 11 December 2011

The last American troops will withdraw from Iraq in the next three weeks. President Obama and Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, will meet tomorrow in Washington so they can claim that the US emerges from the conflict unweakened and leaves behind an increasingly stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq.

This is misleading spin, carefully orchestrated to allow Mr Obama to move into the presidential election year boasting that he has ended an unpopular war without suffering a defeat. We already had a foretaste of this a couple of weeks ago, when Vice President Joe Biden visited Baghdad to laud US achievements.

Over the years, Iraqis have become used to heavily guarded foreign dignitaries arriving secretly in Baghdad to claim great progress on all fronts before scurrying home again. But even by these lowly standards, Mr Biden’s performance sounded comically inept.

“It was the usual Biden menu of gaffe, humour and pomposity delivered with unmistakable self-confidence and no particular regard for the facts on the ground,” writes the Iraq expert Reidar Visser. Mr Biden even tried to win the hearts of Iraqis by referring to the US achievement in building hospitals in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea, a city he apparently believes is located somewhere in Iraq.

Republican candidates in the presidential election have been denigrated and discredited by gaffes like this. It is a measure of Mr Biden’s reputation for overlong, tedious speeches that the US media did not notice his ignorance of Middle East geography.

Dr Visser points out that “when Biden says ‘we were able to turn lemons into lemonade’, refers to ‘a political culture based on free elections and the rule of law’, and even highlights ‘Iraq’s emerging, inclusive political culture … as the ultimate guarantor of stability’, he is simply making things up.” Sadly, Iraq is a much divided wreck of a country.

In reality, America’s failure to get its way in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, despite deploying large armies and spending trillions of dollars, has been extraordinarily damaging to its status as sole superpower.

Whatever Washington thought it wanted when it invaded Iraq in 2003, it was not the establishment of Shia religious parties with links to Iran in power in Baghdad. Similarly, in Afghanistan, a surge in US troop numbers and the expenditure of $100bn a year has not led to the defeat of 25,000 mostly untrained Taliban fighters.

Great powers depend on a reputation for invincibility and are wise not to put this too often to the test. The British Empire never quite recovered in the eyes of the world from the gargantuan effort it had to make to defeat a few tens of thousand Boer farmers.

What makes the US inability to win in Iraq and Afghanistan so damaging is that US policy-making has been progressively militarised. Congress will vote the Pentagon vast sums, while it stints the State Department a few billion dollars. “The Department of Defense is the behemoth among federal agencies,” noted the 9/11 Commission Report. “With an annual budget larger than the gross domestic product of Russia, it is an empire.”

But it is an empire that has failed to deliver in recent years, though without paying a political price. A senior US diplomat asked me plaintively several years ago: “Whatever happened to popular scepticism about what generals say that we had after Vietnam? People seem to assume they are telling the truth … they are usually not.”

This is equally true of the British Army, though the British military record in Basra and Helmand was even more dismal than that of the Americans. (The system of embedding the media with the Army has played an important role in safeguarding the military from well-earned criticism.)

For all Mr Obama’s agonising about sending more troops to Afghanistan in 2009, he never had much choice. Leon Panetta, then CIA chief and now Defense Secretary, was contemptuous about the time spent by the White House debating troop reinforcements. He said the political reality was that “No Democratic president can go against military advice, especially if he asked for it. So just do it.” Mr Panetta believed that a decision on the extra 30,000 troops for Afghanistan should have been taken in a week.

The killing of Osama bin Laden and the failure of the military to defeat the Taliban has improved the administration’s ability to disengage from Afghanistan.

It does not look likely that in a presidential election year, after getting out of Iraq and hoping to do the same in Afghanistan, the US will launch a war against Iran.

In the US and Israel there are few votes to be lost in talking tough about Iran, but voters are much less enthusiastic about actually going to war with a stronger opponent than the US ever faced in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Israel in Lebanon.

In the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the rest of the world is not going to thank the US or Israel for starting a conflict that would close the Strait of Hormuz and send up the price of oil.

It would also be difficult to de-escalate such a confrontation because it serves domestic electoral purposes in Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran alike. Americans, Israelis and Iranians all define their self-image in terms of opposition to demonic enemies. Any compromise is vulnerable to being sabotaged by domestic political rivals as a deal with the devil.

Overall, US influence is ebbing in the Middle East.

For all Mr Biden’s talking up, the Iraq war was a disaster for the US.

Similarly in Afghanistan, massive military force has produced meagre political dividends. Washington may rejoice that Muammar Gaddafi is gone and Bashar al-Assad may follow him. But the US has lost or is losing its paramount position in Turkey and Egypt as the military establishments of these countries lose control.

The political crisis provoked by the Arab Awakening across the Middle East is not dying away. If anything it is deepening as struggles for power intensify in Egypt and Syria. The outcome of the Libyan civil war may encourage limited foreign intervention, but the ongoing economic crisis makes it riskier for the US or European powers to become involved in wars they cannot see the end of.

The great success of General David Petraeus as US commander in Iraq was to persuade many Americans that they had won when they had not.

He also convinced them that the war had ended, when it had not, because many fewer Americans were being killed. In practice, the verdict of Iraq is likely to hang over US foreign policy for a long time to come. The war may not have had a clear winner, but it showed that superior military force no longer easily translates into political victory.

Obama: US Asked Iran to Return Drone


A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.
Winston Churchill
12 December 2011

ABC News’ Cecilia Vega, Luis Martinez and Kirit Radia report:

President Barack Obama said Monday the United States has asked Iran to return the spy drone captured by the country’s military.

“We have asked for it back.  We’ll see how the Iranians respond,” Obama said following a meeting at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The President’s comments  were the first official confirmation that the United States had asked for the return of the RQ-70 drone that was reported missing more than a week ago.

In the week since, Pentagon and State Department officials have repeatedly said they were unaware of any efforts by the American government to contact Iran to have the drone returned to the U.S.

Speaking later in the afternoon Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was doubtful the U.S. would get its “equipment” back.

“Given Iran’s behavior to date, we do not expect them to comply,” she said during a press conference with her British counterpart.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was also skeptical about the prospects about Iran returning the drone.   Speaking to reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft Panetta said asking that Iran return the drone was an “appropriate request.”  Thoughhe added, “I don’t expect that that will happen, but I think it’s important to make that request. ”

He says he doesn’t know the condition of the drone and what Iran or other countries might be able to glean about its capabilities.   Panetta said, ”It’s a little difficult to know just frankly how much they are going to be able to get from having obtained those parts. I don’t know the condition of those parts, I don’t know exactly what state they’re in, so it’s a little difficult to tell what they are going to be able to derive from what they have been able to get.”

A senior commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said on Sunday that Iran would not send the drone back, according to translations of Iranian television by the Associated Press.

“This is not only an intelligence victory for us, but a defeat for our enemies,” the commander said.

President Obama did not say how U.S. officials asked Iran to return the drone, since there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries.

But U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues, told ABC News the request was made through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, who represents American interests there in the absence of a U.S. embassy.

Officials say the RQ-70 drone was flying a mission for the CIA  over Iran at the time that its operators lost control of the drone.

Publicly, American officials have remained tight-lipped about the drone’s mission and have not strayed beyond  a vague statement issued by coalition military forces in Afghanistan shortly after Iranian state-run media claimed they had shot down an American drone.   That statement  referred to an unarmed American reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over Western Afghanistan.”

Before a man speaks it is always safe to assume that he is a fool. After he speaks, it is seldom necessary to assume it.
H. L. Mencken


Capture of US drone provides respite for Iran

Dec 11, 2011

“Satan’s eye has been gouged out,” a jubilant Iranian daily trumpeted yesterday, referring to Iran’s capture of an unmanned US surveillance drone that was apparently staking out the Islamic republic’s nuclear facilities. And the deputy chief of Iran’s armed forces warned that “the US government will have to pay a high price for its unacceptable actions”.

Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri declared: “Our defensive actions will not be limited to our geographical borders.” A leading parliamentarian, Esmail Kowsari, chipped in by warning that if another drone tried to fly over Iran, the country would “target every US military base anywhere in the world.”

Despite the lurid threats, however, analysts doubt Iran will retaliate militarily, given its inability to match American firepower. Tehran’s propaganda and intelligence coup in netting the radar-evading, RQ-170 Sentinel drone last week can instead be used by the increasingly isolated regime to drum up domestic support while bolstering its claims that Iran is the victim of American aggression.

The episode has also helped to distract attention from ever-tightening sanctions and the diplomatic fallout from the recent storming of the British Embassy in Tehran.

“It is far better to use the prospect of a western threat, which is always hanging there, to get the population to mobilise behind the regime … than actually taking action,” said Scott Lucas, an expert on Iran and US foreign policy at Birmingham University in England.

Other analysts point out that Iran has failed to retaliate against a seemingly intensifying campaign of covert operations by the US and Israel, which may be working independently or, at times, together.

There has been a spate of mysterious explosions inside Iran, nuclear scientists have been assassinated, and the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz was temporarily disrupted by the Stuxnet virus last year.

The covert campaign, together with punitive sanctions, has aimed to derail Iran’s suspected quest for nuclear weapon’s capability – an ambition Tehran denies – without having to resort to direct military action that could lead to a regional conflagration and plunge the global economy into further turmoil.

Neither the US nor Israel has acknowledged responsibility for these various attacks, although each has expressed satisfaction with any resulting setbacks to Iran’s nuclear programme.

In turn Iran, which is usually keen to blame both arch enemies for all its troubles, has gone out of its way to insist that recent explosions were accidents that had nothing to do with the ‘Great Satan’ (America) or the ‘Zionist entity’ (Israel).

The most serious ‘accident’ took place on November 12 when a huge explosion ripped through a Revolutionary Guards base 48 kilometres west of Tehran, killing at least 17 people, including a founder of Iran’s ballistic missile programme, General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam.

So why has Iran not hit back? One theory is that despite sanctions, the mysterious explosions, assassinations and the Stuxnet attack, Tehran was steadily progressing with its nuclear programme. “And if they were to retaliate right now, they may provide [the US with the pretext] for a larger war” which could seriously set back Iran’s cherished atomic ambitions, said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, on relations between Iran, the US and Israel, said.

Despite heated rhetoric on both sides, neither Iran nor the US wants a military confrontation and each has shown restraint. For instance, the US had mulled plans to go into Iran and recover or destroy the captured drone but decided not to because of the “escalatory risk of it”, Dr Parsi said in an interview.

Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born analyst based in Israel, argues that the main goal of the US drone operation to spy on Iran was to “expose any secret nuclear activity that can be used to muscle Iran back to the negotiating table”.

He added in an interview: “I see the entire international community preferring a peaceful solution to this problem. But it seems to me the thinking in the West that (Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei is not going to come to the negotiating table of his own will, so he has to be forced.” Next page


Every normal man must be tempted,at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken

The Osawatomie Coincidence? Will The MSM’s Make a Connection? The Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn Connection: Oswatomie = Weather Underground Publication

From Trevor Loudon:

December 8, 2011

Why would Barack Obama choose to give a controversial speech attacking American capitalism in Osawatomie, Kansas?

Hang on? Where have I heard that name before? Osawatomie? ….back in the ’70s? Weather Underground terrorists… Bill AyersBernardine Dohrn. Didn’t Obama used to hang out with those guys?

I remember! Osawatomie was the publication of the Weather Underground!

No, surely its a coincidence….

Just sayin.’




Osawatomie: the Weather Underground newspaper

Nov 1, 2008 <<NOTE DATE

Zomblog has obtained an extremely rare copy of the first issue of Osawatomie, a newspaper published by the Weather Underground in 1975. Noteworthy passages are reproduced below, along with exact transcriptions. The full pages, with each passage in context in high resolution, are found at the bottom of this post.

Much of Osawatomie, which was written at a time when the Dohrn-Ayers wing of the Weather Underground was transitioning from terrorism to “working from the inside” for revolution, concerns itself with the need to encourage “organizers” who will work in “communities” and use “audacity” to bring about “socialism” in America.

Don’t believe me? Read the quotes for yourself, and see them in context on the full pages below.

Rather than analyze the significance of the parallels between the ideas in Osawatomie, Barack Obama’s personal history as a “community organizer,” and the strategies, slogans and goals of his campaign for the presidency, I will let you the reader decide for yourself.

The Weather Underground Organization logo in 1975;
the Obama for President campaign logo in 2008.

As with my earlier posts about Prairie Fire and Obama’s review of Ayers’ book, media members and bloggers are granted full permission to use the images and transcriptions on this page freely and without restriction or attribution.

Many thanks to Zomblog contributors experiencedtraveler and Sharmuta, who did the actual legwork of tracking down and obtaining this rare document.

The following quotes are scanned directly from Osawatomie, with a transcription below each image.

Revolutionaries must be organizers.

There are serious antiracist organizers building a revolutionary base in working class communities — in neighborhoods, shops, mills, mines, social institutions. There are those who are working among women, GI’s, vets, prisoners, among youth, students and the unemployed in every part of the country. There are some who have been at it for years and some who have just begun. Thousands more are needed; and each particular piece of work will have to be linked up into a whole. We need to out-organizethe sophisticated and well-financed forces of George Meany, Louise Day Hicks, Ronald Reagan, George Wallace and Albert Shanker. Organizers need to crush this reactionary leadership with a revolutionized torrent of people.

But revolutionaries expect adversity, expect to be fought every inch of the way by an entrenched ruling class, expect to confront danger and demoralization and overcome it, with creativity and audacity.

Theory and ideology are important tools, and we should make study of Marxism-Leninism an important part of our work.

Organizers must be intimately aware of every problem and each injustice, and they must show that underneath each particular problem lies another problem, and another and another until you reach the system of imperialism itself. The system is designed to create problems for poor, Third World and working-class people. Organizers need to find small solutions to small problems and great solutions to great problems. Our solutions should be drastic.

We need to build a successful struggle, strong organization and a winning revolutionary party. This is a process, which will not emerge full-blown from our minds. It will emerge and change and grow from practice. We know where to begin.

It is with all this in mind that we have created OSAWATOMIE, the revolutionary voice of the Weather Underground Organization.

Left analysis is seen mainly in papers circulated among leftists, left solutions are heard mainly in meetings of the left. And what a shame! Because some of that analysis and some of those solutions make sense, describe concrete conditions, prescribe real remedies. Some of that interpretation of events could provide needed leadership in struggle. But isolated from the people, the makers of history and the carriers of change, it is useless.

The immediate task for the left is this: organize the masses of people against imperialism and for revolution. Pull together friends and comrades, whether three or thirty. Explain the roots of the current economic and social crisis. Fight for jobs and for funds for urgent relief programs. Wealth should be taken from the Pentagon budget and used to rebuild our cities, schools and hospitals.


Now comes a time of decision for the left. Can we overcome the small points that divide us? Can we come together to confront the enemy? Can we build a revolutionary practice firmly rooted among masses of people? Can we transform our lives in order to play our part in the developing storm?

These are the questions that press in on the left today. These are the questions because of this contradiction: millions of people are suffering from the crisis and conflicts generated by the imperialist system, and yet the left is small, dispersed and divided, not a visible force in the lives of the people. Revolutionary politics do not have a strong voice. The left is not situated to fulfill its historic mission — to focus and lead and make sense of mass discontent — to carry the present situation to its furthest limits.

… the system itself is inhuman, and socialism is a real alternative; the energy crisis is the fault of Rockefeller and the oil companies, not the Arab people; unemployment is caused by capitalism not “illegal aliens” stealing jobswar in Indochina or the Mideast is part of the problem, not the solution; political and social action canchange things.

… the Weather Underground Organization’s development. Like all our work, OSAWATOMIE is guided by a commitment to struggle, a determination to fight the enemy, the certainty that we will see revolution in our lifetime

More HERE with full sized quotations by Weather Underground here……..


Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have recently written a new book, Race Course Against White Supremacy, which will be published in June, 2009:

**Note the CENTER CIRCLE of image of book: *****

  and compare to Obama’s logo:



Bill Ayers supports #OWS

Obama supports #OWS

Bill Ayers and Barack Obama are friends.

Bill Ayers and Weather Underground Oswatomie publication:

DIRECT QUOTES from Oswatomie: **Emphasis added for focal points**

“There are some who have been at it for years and some who have just begun. Thousands more are needed; and each particular piece of work will have to be linked up into a whole. We need to out-organize the sophisticated and well-financed forces of George Meany, Louise Day Hicks, Ronald Reagan, George Wallace and Albert Shanker. Organizers need to crush this reactionary leadership with a revolutionized torrent of people.”

“But revolutionaries expect adversity, expect to be fought every inch of the way by an entrenched ruling class, expect to confront danger and demoralization and overcome it, with creativity and audacity.

“Theory and ideology are important tools, and we should make study of Marxism-Leninism an important part of our work.”

“Organizers must be intimately aware of every problem and each injustice, and they must show that underneath each particular problem lies another problem, and another and another until you reach the system of imperialism itself. The system is designed to create problems for poor, Third World and working-class people. Organizers need to find small solutions to small problems and great solutions to great problems. Our solutions should be drastic.”

“We need to build a successful struggle, strong organization and a winning revolutionary party. This is a process, which will not emerge full-blown from our minds. It will emerge and change and grow from practice. We know where to begin.”

“It is with all this in mind that we have created OSAWATOMIE, the revolutionary voice of the Weather Underground Organization.”

“The immediate task for the left is this: organize the masses of people against imperialism and for revolution. Pull together friends and comrades, whether three or thirty. Explain the roots of the current economic and social crisis. Fight for jobs and for funds for urgent relief programs. Wealth should be taken from the Pentagon budget and used to rebuild our cities, schools and hospitals.”

“… the system itself is inhuman, and socialism is a real alternative; the energy crisis is the fault of Rockefeller and the oil companies, not the Arab people; unemployment is caused by capitalism not “illegal aliens” stealing jobs; war in Indochina or the Mideast is part of the problem, not the solution; political and social action can change things.”







WHITE HOUSE INSIDER ON OBAMA Part Two: I’d Kick His Ass Into The F-cking Dirt…

The second part of our most recent interview with a longtime D.C. political operative…

7 December 2011

Ulsterman:  The Occupy protests – they appear to be dying down.  Will they have any kind of influence on the 2012 Election?

Insider:  You say they are dying down – I say the last few months were a test run.  Just like all the racist bullsh-t that came out late summer.  The “Blacks hanging from trees” and the president telling Blacks to mobilize – all that was proof of what I told you about the race politics that are coming.  But those examples…the  race stuff, the Occupy stuff…those were just practice tests for what could be coming by next summer.  You got media people sayin’ it.  “Most brutal campaign ever” – they know what’s coming.  Some of them.  They know how far this administration is gonna push to stay in power.  And it’s not so much Barack Obama that’s doing the pushing.  He’s out in front sure – but he’s got some strong motherfu–ers pushing him in the back.  Big money interests.  They doubled down on this investment, and they ain’t gonna just get up from the poker table, right?  I’ve been at this for a long-long time…seen all kinds of sh-t that would make people wonder what the hell happened to this country…but all that time – all those years – the kinds of people Barack Obama got shoving him to move ahead – keep the pressure on…they have always scared the sh-t outta me.  Past administrations…there has always been this element in our politics.  The most dubious of special interests.  That may be a piss-poor description of what they are, but lets call it that for now.  They’ve always been around.  Here and there.  But this administration – the Obama White House…these people ARE the administration.  They ain’t just “here and there” – they are IT.  They created Barack Obama and they will use that creation to the very end.  And don’t ask me what that end is, ’cause I don’t have a fu–ing clue.

Ulsterman:  That’s all rather mysterious – a bit dramatic don’t you think?  Who are these people?  And what’s their motivation?

Insider:  Dramatic?  Yeah…it’s “a bit dramatic”.  How many times I tell you something – I see your head shaking even when it’s not.  Don’t think I don’t see that.  And then what?  Sure as sh-t then what?  It happens.  There are powers at play here – always been these powers, but with this administration it’s just a matter of perspective.  And it ain’t a Democrat or a Republican problem – these interests, these “investors”… are attached to either party. Don’t matter, really.  The difference has always been if the president and his staff had the willpower to withstand the pressures that can be applied by these investors.  Some do – some don’t.  Barack Obama…his staff, the thing is…some of them were these interests I’m telling you about.  At least extensions of them.  And they are the most radicalized versions.  And I’m not talking about some moron like Bill Ayers.  Examples like that are cartoon distractions.

Ulsterman:  A specific example would help.  Of one of these “investors” as you just called them.

Insider:  You interviewed one.  Recently. -Name withheld-.  They got a whole lot of everything they ain’t telling you.  Beneath all that good manners and “call him the president” bullsh-t.  Shaking hands with Reagan?  Yeah…bit more to it than that.  I ain’t saying the Occupy thing didn’t shake ‘em up – that seemed genuine.  And the years might be catching up to them…but you wanna get an idea of what I’m telling you about right now – you go look them up again.  They’ll read this – they read every word of this.  You see if they’ll talk to you about it.  These kinds of people – I’ve always been on the outside looking in.  You talk to them – you’re on the inside looking out.

Ulsterman:  -Name Withheld-?  You sent me to them…that was your doing.  I was under the impression you were working together – defeating Barack Obama.  Right?

Insider:  Yeah – that’s right.  Look…you go – you go talk to them about this.  If they give you an honest…they want to talk about it.  I am pretty sure of that.  So you go try and talk to them.  I don’t wanna be talking for them because frankly I ain’t fu–ing qualified to do that. Those kind of people and me  – we ain’t fallin’ from the same tree.  When you get that deep into the machine…it’s outta my league.  Those are deep waters and I ain’t that strong a swimmer.  You go talk to -name withheld-.  They like you – you’ll get the sit-down.

Ulsterman:  They left New York….

Insider:  I don’t know if they actually left – but if they did, they’re back.  Been back for a while.  They’ll read this.  You contact them – they’ll know it’s coming.  They are opposed to Barack Obama – don’t question that.  It’s a war that kinda floats above our heads…or maybe below our feet.  That might be more appropriate – right?  (laughs)  It’s all the stuff you never see or hear about – the things that take place just outside the perimeters of American politics.  Always has.  Always will.  I’ve had to deal with that world – but I don’t live in it.  It always intimidated me.  Big time.  Presidents…I’ve hinted at this to you before.  As powerful as they are – as potentially influential as they can be…they can have their chain jerked by these kinds of people.  Bill Clinton?  He knows.  Very-very well.  That Global Initiative of his…that…that…(long pause)  Bush?  He found out.  Same people who invested in his daddy – they didn’t get their second term, so he was to finally provide a return on their investment.  Your boy Reagan – he dealt with these fu–ers. He navigated around them as well as anyone.  That’s the key for a president you see.  Navigating around them.  Like a big slow moving ship.  You navigate around them or you sink.  These sons-a-b-tches will sink a president if they need to.

This stuff – it’s gettin’ us off track here.  You reach out to -name withheld-.  Talk to them about this.  The time we got left here – focus on Obama.  Right?  Maybe some day after 2012 if I’m still above ground – we can talk more about this kind of thing.  Over a couple a cold ones.  Do some fishing…

Ulsterman:  How about the shooting?  The guy who shot at the White House?  You knew that was going happen – you called it.

Insider:  No-no-no-no…I didn’t know specifically about that.  You’re gonna get me in trouble putting it that way.  I told you there would be a staged threat – or that there was talk of it.  Strategically.  It had been discussed as a stratagey back in ’08, and it was on the table for ’12.  That shooting – c’mon…I watched that play out and it reeks of a con-job doesn’t it?  That’s what kills me about these people – the Obama operatives.  They are so fu–ing predictable and incompetent.  They got a picture of this guy – he’s posing for f-cks sake.  They run with the anti-Israeli thing.  All bullsh-t.  They got the gun, right?  Just left at the scene?  Bullets that hit the “residence”?  Really?  C’mon now.  The story hits, circulates for what – about 72 hours, right?  Then disappears.  That 72-hour thing – I’ve used that time frame before, right?  Wanna know why?  72 hours – it’s a classic news cycle test run.  The right amount of time to measure public response…for something to use down the road.

That shooting – they called it an “assassination attempt” right?  That was not the incident I told – I said… that’s being planned.  It was a planned incident – it’s not THE planned incident?  See? You follow me there?  A trial balloon.  Just like the Occupy stuff.  Just like the end of summer racist stuff.  The waters are being tested.  I know it.  Absolutely know it.  I worked with some of these people.  I know how they operate – I know what they are doing here.  They are clumsy though – easy to spot.  But if they get enough media…enough favorable media coverage – they will allowed to be sloppy as long as it fits with the pre-determined outcome.  The hoped for outcome.  For them anyway.

Ulsterman:  Which is what?  What outcome?

Insider:  Barack Obama wins ’12.  He gets his second term…the stuff that’s gone on now, recently…practice round.  The real deal will go down much closer to the election.  They got a file – battle plan against Romney.  The race angle.  That race card will work alongside the Occupy stuff. Divide the country up with race and class.  They are going all-in on that.  It’s all they got.  Can’t run on Obama’s record, right?  So they gotta push the race and class agenda full time.  Big time.

Ulsterman:  A Romney file?

Insider:  A file – a plan.  They have spent resources – big money already, preparing to run against Romney.  He is their preferred opponent.  Not so much because they think he’s the easiest to defeat but because they have been preparing for him for the last year now.  The Mormon thing, the racism angle – they think they can cripple the Romney team with it.  I don’t know how specifically – but there is a lot of confidence coming from the Obama team regarding Romney.  He’s the one they’ve been working up.

Ulsterman:  What about Gingrich?  You made it clear I needed to watch Gingrich – and since then he has risen in the polls.  He’s leading in some of those polls.  How did you know?  And would he be a stronger candidate against Obama than would Romney?

Insider:  I didn ‘t  know Gingrich was gonna rise so quickly – but there was some localized polling out there showing people were paying more attention to him.  They liked the debates – his performance in those debates.  The idea of seeing him go against Barack Obama…that appeals to a lot of people, right?  It’s still early – Iowa is soon, but overall, it’s still very early.  But Gingrich has the Obama campaign scrambling a bit – that’s for sure.  Do I wanna see Newt Gingrich as President of the United States?  F-ck no I don’t.  He is an arrogant pr-ck.  I’ve told him that to his face back…hell, a lifetime ago now it seems.   The guy has been in D.C. for what?  30-40 years?  But could he defeat Barack Obama?  Maybe.  And if he’s the GOP nominee, I’ll do everything I can to help him do just that.  2012 isn’t about Democrat vs Republican for me – for a lot of us.  It’s about…I’m gonna come off as a bit off the rocker here…it’s about good vs evil.  America vs something else.  Barack Obama ain’t evil…he’s too stupid to be called that.  But the ideas behind Barack Obama…the ones who created Barack Obama…I think they just might be.  I used to think the Bush administration was the most corrupt, incompetent administration we’ve ever seen…oh my was I off on that.  Obama?  Sh-t…Bush got nothin’ on Barack Obama.

Ulsterman:  If you could choose the Republican nominee – the one you think has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama, who would it be?  Romney or Gingrich?

Insider:  I feel more comfortable with Mitt Romney.  I appreciate the organization of his campaign.  I appreciate the discipline of the candidate.  And that’s what it’s gonna take – incredible organization and a candidate who can stay on message and hold up to the attacks – it’s gonna be brutal, right?  That word again – BRUTAL.  And whoever is going up against Barack Obama has to be able to hold up to that.  I have my doubts Newt Gingrich can do that.  He has a stubborn streak – always has…he don’t always listen to the people around him who might know better.

Ulsterman:  You mean he isn’t as controllable?  Isn’t that what you’re really saying?  That people like you can more easily control a candidate like Mitt Romney than they could a candidate like Newt Gingrich?  You have spoken of the organization of the Romney campaign a number of times before – which means he has people like you around him  – political operatives, and so you are gravitating to that kind of campaign because it’s what you know.  You’re more comfortable with that. Or perhaps you’re on the payroll.  The Romney payroll?

Insider:  Well ain’t that just a nice pile of sh-t you just spread out there?  (laughs)  It’s just what I told you – the Romney campaign is very well organized.  That kind of organization goes a long way to winning a national election.  That means he has the better chance of defeating the Obama campaign machine.  That’s it.  Don’t go reading anything more into it than that.  My preference would be to see a proper Democrat running for president, but we don’t have that, do we?  So I’m working to see the Republican defeat Barack Obama.  If it’s Mitt Romney – great.  If it’s Newt Gingrich…ok, so be it.  Not my ideal candidate…and what a strange fu–ing trip it’s been to even be considering working to elect him…but I’ll do that if it means preventing Barack Obama from another four years as President of the United States. The country can survive Newt Gingrich.  I don’t know if it can survive Barack Obama.  No…that’s not right.  I KNOW America can’t survive Barack Obama.  I’ve shared that with you already.

Ulsterman:  Let’s talk about Barack Obama.  End it on that.  Specifically – if you came across him today.  Just you and him.  What would you say to him?  Is there any hope he can be convinced of what he is doing to the country is wrong?  It’s just you and President Obama.  You helped get him elected.  Now you are working to defeat him.  If you could say anything that might convince him to change direction, politically change direction – what would it be?

Insider:  That’s one of the dumbest questions you’ve…asinine – ever asked me.  No disrespect son – but-but-but… c’mon.

Ulsterman:  Maybe it is – but humor me.

Insider:  Humor?  Nothin’ too funny about any of this.  Nothin’…I got nothin’ to say to Barack Obama.  Except mayby-maybe…he can get the f-ck out.  He won’t listen to the likes of me.  He listens to – he has just a few people who get through to him and that’s the problem, right?  Those people…this country has never had that kind of extremism in the White House before.  Least not in our lifetimes.

Ulsterman:  It’s just you and the president though.  You’ve made a lot of money over the years giving advice.  Consulting.  So what would you say to him?  Call it a long-shot – but if given the opportunity now to change his mind – what would you say?

Insider:  (Long pause)…ain’t nothin’ you could say to a guy like that.  You know…growing up…we’ve all – most of us…we’ve had our ass kicked into the dirt right?  At least we used to. My generation certainly.  That was just part of-of it. Right? Growing up.  You…sometimes you disagreed with a guy and there was no time for talking you just…you just – you let those dogs bark for a bit.  And sometimes you came out of it – you got the better of the other guy, and sometimes you got your ass kicked into the dirt.  And there’s a helluva lot of learning from those moments.  Helps make a man of you.  Sometimes you know – a fist to your face…your ass in the dirt…it humbles you, right?  You-you-you… learn that life ain’t always gonna cut your way.  You can lose.  And it hurts – fu–ing literally hurts.  That’s life.   Life don’t owe you nothin’ and sometimes it might just kick your ass in the dirt.

Barack Obama ain’t ever learned that lesson.  He’s been told since day one – been told life owes him something.  Been told he’s special. Been told America is all wrong, that it needs to be changed up.  Not just improved – hell, I would be the first to say it could be improved.  No, Obama’s been told it needs to be…what did his wife say?  America needs to be transformed?  Right?  Something like that?  He never had to work to be where he is.  Never had to…his grandparents spoiled the sh-t out of him.  Colleges spoiled the sh-t out of him.  Such a bright young man, right?  What did Biden say about that?  He speaks well and is “clean”?  Jes-s H. Chr-st.  That’s been Obama’s M.O. his whole life!  The well spoken Black guy.  Tellin’ him he’s smart.  He deserves success.  Jarrett sniffs his potential and gives him opportunity – just hands it to him.  Those Chicago people, they mark him as their guy.  More is given to him.  A house.  A campaign.  The guy was fast-tracked all the way.  Jack Kennedy was given a sh-tload of privilege but he also got his back broke up to sh-t in WWII.  He at least knew something about sacrifice.   Not Obama.  Not ever.  What has he sacrificed?  Nothing.  He’s been told what to think, what to say – and that is what is happening in the White House.  Since day one.  When the campaign ended in 2008 – anyone paying attention, anyone around the administration began to  realize the guy can’t function without being told what to think and what to say.  And as long as what is being told to him is that he is great…that this country f-cking owes him something…he’s ok with…he’s ok with it.

Ulsterman:  So what would you say?  How would you improve – what would you do or say to improve that situation you just layed out?

Insider:  I’d kick his ass into the f-cking dirt…



WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: There Is A Very Uneasy Peace Between President Obama And The American Military-Part One

A fascinating two-part interview with a longtime D.C. political operative discussing the inner workings of the Obama White House and both political parties as they prepare for the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election:


Ulsterman:  If you don’t mind, I would like to do some simple topic association so that we might cover as much ground possible with the little time you have to speak with me today.

WH Insider:  Sure – as long as you ask me about Eric Holder.  That’s my focus right now.  Everything else – and there’s a lot of it…but everything else is in limbo until after December 8th.

Ulsterman:  Eric Holder it is then…

WH Insider:  Pay attention.  In a week or so.  The hearing.  That – we are reaching the-the moment of truth on Holder.  What do we got now…almost 60 members – members of Congress calling for his resignation?  And that’s just publicly.  There are Democrats voicing the same uh…the same suggestion.  I’ll say it to you again – you keep asking me about it, every time we talk so one more time for you…Eric Holder will no longer be Attorney General of the United States.  That-that is – you’ll see that happen soon now.  Very soon.

Ulsterman:  When?

WH Insider:  What?  You asking me – like a day?  A specific day?  I don’t have that…

Ulsterman:  Next month?  Next year?  When?

WH Insider:  Soon.  The hearing is in about a week, right?  December?  First week of December, right?  In front of Judiciary.  The Senate hearing went very well for us on this.  You likely don’t understand all of that – all of the…it went well.  That was among the most aggressive Senate hearings I’ve seen in a long time.  You don’t get that from them very often.  That was further proof that this thing won’t be put back in the barn.  It’s out and it’s a problem that isn’t going away for this White House.  And the cover-up…that’s there.  It’s known.  It’s been known.  The rope was let out, over and over and they just kept taking it up.  How did I put it to you months ago?  “We got them.”  Right?  Something like that, right?  Well – we got ‘em.

And let me say something else on this.  Might seem to be stating the obvious to you here but I want to say it anyways.  Eric Holder is about the most corrupt and…sinister – he’s the most sinister Attorney General this country has seen.  Dangerous.  He’s gone off the reservation all on his own from time to time.  I used to believe everything came through certain people, or a certain person.  But Holder has been running his own game on a lot of this stuff.  He’ll be forced out and then…the-the…and then the American people are gonna start to hear what was going on at Justice.  It won’t come out all at once.  They are working to cover those tracks as we speak – but too many got the goods now.  It’ll come out in drips and drabs.  They’ll try to minimize the damage for ’12.  It won’t work.  Not entirely.  We are seeing to that.  That’s what they are bumping into right now you see.  The political liability that Holder has become.  Back in 2010, they thought they could ride it out.  Delay.  Bury it.  Move one.  And they have been somewhat successful, but the information is getting out, and enough in Congress know they have to act on it or get their own fingers caught up in the machine.  That was seen during the Senate hearing – but that hearing was intended to set up for Judiciary coming up.  And after that…we got the foundation in place to force out a United States Attorney General.  I wasn’t privy to all of that until just recently.  Suspected it.  Had it figured.  Now it’s been confirmed.  What we are waiting on with this now is the on-the-record condemnation of Eric Holder from Democrats.  We have it off the record – but now we need it to go public.  Then the endgame is there.  This part of the plan is nearly done.

Ulsterman:  Jarrett vs Daley

WH Insider:  There is no “Jarrett vs Daley”.  She is out of her league.  I told you there would be a prominent staff departure, right.  You recall that, right?  That departure would be a-a signal.  A message that all bets are off if you will.  This White House is on its own.  Daley kept a lot of sh-t at bay.  Kept it controlled.  The little tit for tat sh-t with his announced departure followed up by them stripping him of his duties – whatever.  They got nothing.  Nothing on Daley.  They are so outmatched with that.  You see the media attacks against the administration since Daley announced his leaving?  You notice that?  The signal was sent out and now it’s on for this White House.  There’s gonna still be the ass-kissers.  The guys hedging their bets.  Hell, there was a time I was counted among them – but more and more are reaching the same conclusion I did last year – this damn administration has got to go.  This White House is…it’s as bad as – no, it’s worse than the detractors can think it.  Godd-mn dangerous is what it is.  For all of us.

Ulsterman:  Be more specific please.  Are you referring to something recent?  If so – be specific.

WH Insider:  Specific?  Yeah – it’s specific.  A whole sh-tload of specific.  Where to start?  You want a line on the military angle. Afghanistan?  Iraq?  How about the super-committee boondoggle?  How about that?  The blow up over that?  Inside the party?  All of that is swirling around – but my focus…right now it’s Eric Holder.  It’s Issa and others pushing this thing to its necessary conclusion.  For now everything else is distraction.  And that’s about all this administration has left – they sure as hell don’t lead do they?  It’s distract-distract-distract.  You know how frustrating it is to be working against the same damn tactics you’ve used yourself for years during how many campaigns now?  I am fighting against my own     godd-mn playbook!

Ulsterman:  How about the super-committee?  Tell me a little about what went on with that.  It certainly appeared the administration wanted it to fail.

WH Insider:  Want…didn’t want.  It’s not even that.  It’s like they didn’t even care.  What did the president do when the deadline was coming down?  He left the country.  He went golfing, gave a few more speeches, said Hawaii was in f**king Asia, right?  Shoulda been a Dan Quayle moment for him – another one.  But the media…enough of them still carrying the godd-mn water for these people.  Whatever.  Enough heard about it.  But it gets old doesn’t it?  How many gaffes the man makes?  How many times he reveals to the world what a fool he is?  But there are still people saying he’s a smart guy.  I’m telling you – seen it up close.  Barack Obama isn’t smart.  Arrogant.  Immature.  Naïve.  Lazy.  You bet – but he ain’t smart.

Ulsterman:  Back to the super-committee…what happened with that?  The “boondoggle” as you put it?

WH Insider:  That mess actually feeds right into some of the other stuff…Afghanistan,Iraq – the military.  The fractured relationship that exists between this White House and the military.  All the way up to the Joint Chiefs apparently.  Some of them boys are extremely pissed off at this president.  If not for their devotion to a code of conduct…he’s not a popular guy.

Ulsterman:  That’s both repetitive and obvious.  Back to the super-committee – what happened?  Are the rumors it was intended to fail true?

WH Insider:  You just put me down?  Did you – did you just call me boring?  (laughs)

Ulsterman:  Let’s focus on the super-committee…the allegations of intentional failure floating around.

WH Insider:  Sure…intentional.  I think that intent was coming more from the Democratic leadership.  Not so much the White House.  Now I’m not saying the White House isn’t happy it broke apart – that scenario fits in with the “run against Congress” thing the re-election crew has come up with.  Harry Truman reborn or whatever the hell they think they are gonna pull off.  Sure as hell can’t run on Barack Obama’s incompetence and total f-ckuppery now can they?  It’s just the White House doesn’t have much direct input to Congress these days.  Been that way for some time actually.

But that committee, yeah, it was doomed at the outset.  The Dems…not all of them – the leadership…they want to cut defense and this committee was an ends to go and do that you see.  Create the mandatory cuts legislation that was part of the deal a few months back.  So those Dems get the cuts – the president gets his do-nothing Congress campaign theme, and the Republicans get the blame because the media keeps calling it the “Republican Congress” right?  That tagline has been in play all year long.

Where it got interesting though from an in-house standpoint, is the couple gentlemen who went to the leadership with a plan – a bi-partisan plan, to work it all out.  And each of them had support from their own parties – maybe 60-70 or so other members who indicated their support.  There were some folks in Congress who actually wanted to get something done on this.  And that’s been the case all along.  How many bills have been stalled in the Senate since 2010?  Hundreds.  The Republicans and some Democrats are sending things over from the House and Reid is trashing them.  And the guy who has plans to replace Reid as the Democratic Party leader in the Senate – John Kerry.  The Kerry office in fact is responsible for more of the anti-bipartisan tone than Reid.  So Kerry was the guy making certain the super-committee fell on its ass.  He is among the Dems who are still very loyal to the Obama White House.  There isn’t so many of them these days, but they hold the positions of power, so their influence remains strong.

Back to these two gentlemen though – these two junior members of Congress.  They tried repeatedly to meet with the Democratic Party leadership and were brushed off.  At one point they finally accused a staff member from a certain high ranking Democrat’s office of purposely setting up the negotiations to fail.  This staff member confirmed that was exactly what was happening and they would be better of just “shutting up and following orders.”  Now that pretty much sums up the attitude within the party right there.  Shut up and follow orders.  That was exactly how the Obamacare votes went down.  Shut up and follow orders and we lost a whole slew of good people in the 2010 elections because of it.  But that right there isn’t even the real meat of this little story.  When the staff member was pressed on why…when the two Congressmen asked if the president was aware the committee’s intent to fail may push the country on the brink of another credit downgrade, this little sh-t of a staff member said the following – in these exact words:

The President knows what we want him to know and nothing more.  That works fine for him and that works even better for us.  He doesn’t return our calls and we don’t return his.

Those exact words.  So what we have is a small group of Congressional Democrats – the leadership, completely dismissing the obligation to working with the President of the United States and that same president, who also happens to be a Democrat as well, completely dismissing the obligation to work with Congress.  Now to someone uninformed, that might not seem like much.  Big deal, huh?  Well, it’s a very big deal.  It’s a very dangerous situation.  It’s why the military boys are now coming out on record and criticizing a sitting Commander in Chief.  If those mandatory cuts go into effect, which will decimate the military budget, that puts the country at increased risk.  Look at the godd-mn world – it’s on fire right now!  This country isn’t feared.  It isn’t respected.  In just three short years President Obama has made the United States a fu—ing joke to the world. Russia…Putin – the guy mocks us. China is buying us up one treasury sale at a time. Iran tells us to f-ck off every day of the week. Iraq pushes us out.  We spent a trillion or two over there – how many lives, and they tell us to get the f-ck out. Germany…they think we are just about through.  Do you know that?  The chatter coming out from Germany – they think America is about ready to collapse.  They’re just deciding whether or not to intervene or let it happen.  50/50 they say.  Maybe one – maybe the other.  Share what’s left with China.

Now these two gentlemen make their way to the Republican leadership.  Get a meeting there – not just some staff member brush off.  They are told nothing can be done at this point until after the elections.  The Republicans seem to think they are gonna win the Senate and all will be better.  Poor dumb bastards that they are, right?  But at least they recognize the problem – which is sure as hell a lot more than the Democratic leadership is doing these days.  Those people are the problem.  And we got a movement from within the Democratic Party to take it back if you will.  A moderate movement going against the progressives – the f-cking progressives who have all but destroyed the party over the last decade.  We’ve always had our oddballs – our far lefters – no different than the Republicans got their crazies too, but you don’t give them the leadership.  You don’t make them the face of the party.  But that’s what happened.  All of that anti-Bush hysteria…the barbarians took the gate and we are just now realizing they ran as Democrats—

Ulsterman:  (Interrupts) —Who was the military – you said someone in the military openly criticized the president?  Who was that?  Was this recently?

WH Insider:  Now you see, that’s part of the problem.  You should have known about this – spotted it right away.  I’m not blaming you – but the example is…it’s – what’s the word here…it’s indicative of how the real stories are getting buried in the bullsh-t of the mainstream.  It’s why we set this thing up here.  Get it out and hope it percolates and eventually goes mainstream, right?  I get to share things here I can’t share publicly.

Ulsterman:  Who in the military criticized the president?  Openly?

WH Insider:  Joint Chiefs.  The very top.  And he wouldn’t speak for himself – that’s not how the CoC works in a situation like this.  When he spoke – he spoke for the United States military.  And he spoke out against the administration and what is happening to our Armed Forces around the world.

Ulsterman:  What was said?

WH Insider:  I don’t recall the word-for-word of it but the gist was this – that the relationship between the United States and Pakistan has never been worse than it is today.  And that indicates it has never been more dangerous. Pakistan – you wrote something on this right? Pakistan is a nuclear power.  Very unstable.  The same radical Muslims who are overtaking Egypt,Libya, and elsewhere have their sites set on Pakistan.  Push out the military junta replace it with a hardline Muslim fundamentalist government – only this time, those Muslims will have the bomb.

When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff goes on record indicating the situation in Pakistan– and by default then you gotta say Afghanistan as well…that it’s the most f-cked up it’s ever been – that’s about as strong a rebuke of a current presidential administration as you’re gonna get from a member of the military at that high of a level.  And don’t forget – there have been other examples of the military speaking out against this White House.  There is a very uneasy peace between President Obama and the military.  And a hell of a lot of mistrust – on both sides. Dempsey was just recently appointed Chairman, but he was in there for a spell before that.  He knows damn well what’s going on – and I am told Obama had far less to do with Dempsey being made Chairman than Leon Panetta.  And it’s been Panetta who has been letting off the loudest warnings about slashing the military budget at this time, right?  And it was Panetta who oversaw the Bin Laden killing – not Barack Obama, right?  Dempsey has been warning about the possible military cuts for months now…anyone want to argue none of this is related they can have at it.  I’m not gonna play that kind of dumb though.  At least not anymore.  I am convinced there are forces at play here far more powerful than our little song and dance political warfare we got going here.  I just pray to God that if things break against us, these people are on our side.

PART TWO COMING SOON:  Insider speaks on Occupy Wall Street, the alleged and possibly staged “assassination attempt”, more on Obama’s  race-war political agenda, and the GOP primary race.

NOTE:  The  Eric Holder Fast and Furious Congressional Hearing is scheduled for December 8th, 2011.