Archive for the ‘Barry the Puppet’ Category


The towering symbols of a fading religion, over 14,000 wind turbines, abandoned, rusting, slowly decaying. When it is time to clean up after a failed idea, no green environmentalists are to be found. Wind was free, natural, harnessing Earth’s bounty for the benefit of all mankind, sounded like a good idea. Wind turbines, like solar panels, break down. They produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them. The wind does not blow all the time, or even most of the time. When it is not blowing, they require full-time backup from conventional power plants.

Without government subsidy, they are unaffordable. With governments facing financial troubles, the subsidies are unaffordable. It was a nice dream, a very expensive dream, but it didn’t work.

California had the “big three” of wind farm locations — Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio, considered the world’s best wind sites. California’s wind farms, almost 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity ceased to generate even more quickly than Kamaoa Wind Farm in Hawaii. There are five other abandoned wind farms in Hawaii. When they are abandoned, getting the turbines removed is a major problem. They are highly unsightly, and they are huge, and that’s a lot of material to get rid of.

Unfortunately the same areas that are good for siting wind farms are a natural pass for migrating birds. Altamont’s turbines have been shut down four months out of every year for migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit. According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society 75-110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-Tailed Hawks and 333 American Kestrels are killed by the turbines every year. An Alameda County Community Development Agency study points to 10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont wind turbines. The Audubon Society makes up numbers like the EPA, but there’s a reason why they call them bird Cuisinarts.

Palm Springs has enacted an ordinance requiring their removal from San Gorgonio Pass, but unless something else changes abandoned turbines will remain a rotting eyesores, or the taxpayers who have already paid through the nose for overpriced energy and crony-capitalist tax scams will have to foot the bill for their removal.

President Obama’s offshore wind farms will be far more expensive than those sited in California’s ideal wind locations. Salt water is far more damaging than sun and rain, and offshore turbines don’t last as long. But nice tax scams for his crony-capitalist backers will work well as long as he can blame it all on saving the planet.



Krauthammer Scoffs At Obama’s Idealism, Addresses Containment Strategy Towards China

President Obama’s speech at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial included common themes and references to the human condition, the depravity of man, the value of scientific achievement, coupled with the realities of war.

Obama referenced his own desire to see nuclear weapons eliminated but added he might not see that reality take place in his lifetime. He ended his speech with a call to humanity to embrace the ideal that we’re all members of one world family, and called for a moral awakening in his closing remarks.

But award-winning columnist and author Charles Krauthammer accuses the president of being a naïve idealist.
Krauthammer writes it’s important to know the differences between idealists and realists. “For realists, generally conservative, history is an endless cycle of clashing power politics.The same patterns repeat. Only the names and places change,” the author contends. “The best we can do in our own time is to defend ourselves, managing instability and avoiding catastrophe. But expect nothing permanent, no essential alteration in the course of human affairs.”

Krauthammer says by contrast, idealists “believe that the international system can eventually evolve out of its Hobbesian state of nature into something more humane and hopeful,” mainly through peace treaties and diplomacy, as Obama suggested in Hiroshima.

The columnist contends, “Barack Obama is a classic case study in foreign policy idealism. Indeed, one of his favorite quotations is about the arrow of history: ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ He has spent nearly eight years trying to advance that arc of justice. Hence his initial ‘apology tour,’ that burst of confessional soul-searching abroad about America and its sins, from slavery to the loss of our moral compass after 9/11. Friday’s trip to Hiroshima completes the arc.”
But Krauthammer charges Obama with failed policies.

“Unfortunately, with ‘justice’ did not come peace,” he writes. “The policies that followed — appeasing Vladimir Putin, the Iranian mullahs, the butchers of Tiananmen Square and lately the Castros — have advanced neither justice nor peace. On the contrary. The consequent withdrawal of American power, that agent of injustice or at least arrogant overreach, has yielded nothing but geopolitical chaos and immense human suffering. (See Syria).”

The reality is the world is not a peaceful place. It never has been. And if history repeats itself, it never will be.

Thus, while Krauthammer is strongly critical of Obama’s idealism, citing its failures to create peace in the Middle East, he gives passing credit to Obama for deferring to realism for returning the U.S. military to the Philippines, ending the arms embargo with Vietnam (thereby partnering with Vietnam to help contain China), and cites the Trans-Pacific partnership as an economic cordon around China.
The Fox News contributor, award-winning journalist and author concluded Obama’s legacy will be two-fold. “He thus leaves a double legacy. His arc-of-justice aspirations, whatever their intention, leave behind tragic geopolitical and human wreckage. Yet this belated acquiescence to realpolitik, laying the foundations for a new containment, will be an essential asset in addressing this century’s coming central challenge, the rise of China,” he said, concluding China’s power will be hard to contain, much like cold-war Russia’s was nearly impossible to contain.



Billionaire George Soros destroyed coal then warms up to coal as stock prices hit bottom

Ready to buy them up…..
Check it out:

Billionaire investor George Soros, who has demonized fossil fuels for years through his think tanks and political contributions, seems to have warmed up to Big Coal now that stocks are dirt cheap.

The left-wing hedge fund legend has raised eyebrows with major purchases of stock in two large coal companies, firms his critics say he helped bring to their knees.

While buying low is the hallmark of any shrewd investor, buying coal goes against the political and environmental ideology Soros has long espoused.

“I find it very interesting that George Soros would buy shares in those coal companies,” said Daniel Simmons, vice president for Policy at the Washington DC-based free market energy group, Institute for Energy Research. “I am confused given the non profits he funds and how hard they have worked to demonize coal.”

Soros, whose Climate Policy Initiative think tank recently urged the world to stop using fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, snapped up 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and half a million shares of Arch Coal, giving him significant stakes in what’s left of the U.S. coal industry.

The trades would have cost Soros a lot more six years ago, when Peabody, which trades under the symbol BTU, was at about $90 a share. Under the Obama administration, which has punished the coal industry with costly mandates and regulation, Peabody shares have fallen to around $1.

Neither Soros nor his New York-based investment firm, Soros Fund Management, would comment on the coal play, citing a longstanding policy of not discussing investments.

The 85-year-old hedge fund manager has a net worth of $24.2 billion, according to, which makes him the 19th wealthiest person in U.S. and second among hedge fund managers.

The most recent filing shows Soros Fund Management holds stakes in 263 companies with a total value of nearly $11 billion.

The filing shows the purchases of 553,200 shares of Arch Coal for $188,000 and an investment of $2,254,000 into Peabody Energy for 1,029,400 shares, which means he’s lost money on both so far. Peabody, the biggest coal producer in the U.S. by output, said in a recent statement that it “has been trying to turn itself around as it faces challenges from low natural-gas prices, a glut of global coal supplies, weakened demand from China and a growing public call to cut carbon emissions.”

Soros Fund Management previously held $234 million in shares in the coal producing company, CONSOL Energy, but sold the shares over the last year, according to

Free market energy experts note Soros has invested more than a billion dollars into think tanks, lobbyists, political action committees and politicians who have pushed for regulations that have nearly destroyed the coal industry, in favor of so called “clean energy.”

Soros invested $1 billion in clean energy technology beginning in 2009, according to Bloomberg News. He also founded the Climate Policy Initiative, a San Francisco-based organization, in which he is investing $100 million over a decade, Bloomberg News reports. Among its partners is the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, and the U.S. Department of State. The Climate Policy Initiative released a report last year suggesting the world should transition away from coal.

Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which has assets of $1.5 million, according to its most recent IRS 990 tax form, claims over the last three decades expenditures of $12 billion.

Soros was convicted in a French court in 2009 of insider trading, which cost him the equivalent of $2.5 million in fines. That was the amount French prosecutors claimed he made 14 years ago after investing, allegedly with insider knowledge, in the French bank Société Générale – a charge Soros denied., the Political Moneyline database of Federal Election Commission records for donations that George Soros made during the 2012, 2014, and 2016 election cycles, shows 139 records for more than $8.8 million.

In 2015, he made two contributions of $1 million each to Priorities USA Action Super PAC and American Bridge 21st Century Super PAC. He initially supported Hillary Clinton for President when he donated $25,000 to the Ready For Hillary PAC in 2013.

Soros backed President Obama, who notably campaigned in 2008 shutting down the coal industry, a promise industry experts say he’s kept.

“The drop in coal market stock is directly related to the promise that Obama made to his environmental extremist supporters – ‘you can build coal fired power plants, but we will shut them down,’” said John Sparr, a mining engineer and geologist who specializes in the coal industry.

Investments in coal under current conditions bear little risk given the low stock prices.

“With markets dwindling, coal companies shutting down and workers being laid off, it is no wonder that stocks are crashing,” Sparr said.

But should there be a change in the regulatory climate, coal stocks could become a bargain.
The important thing about coal, Simmons said, is a little over 10 years ago, coal produced 50 percent of energy in the U.S. and that is now at 40 percent and continuing to trend downward.

Michael South, a UK-based mining and energy consultant, told that while coal prices have suffered around the world in part because of a drop in demand from China and other countries, and fracking, which produced natural gas at a cheaper price, there is still a huge need for coal, and eventually prices will go up.

“George Soros spent millions of dollars and multiple years helping to driving down price of coal,” said H. Sterling Burnett, research fellow and managing editor, at the Heartland Institute. “If he buys enough stock to have controlling interests in these coal businesses, closes them down and leaves the coal in the ground, we might accept that he is a true believer, that his investment was all about stopping climate change and saving the environment.”

“But my suspicion is that he helped to drive stocks down, bought as many shares as he can, and, when stocks rebound, he can sell his shares and make a huge profit.”



By John F. Di Leo –

On Wednesday, a young American woman – Kathryn Steinle, age 32 – was shot in the back as she and her father were strolling on a pier in San Francisco. She died in his arms, pleading “Help me, help me!”

The facts in the case are plain, and undisputed. We don’t even need to fill the story with the adverb “allegedly,” since the demon who did it has admitted to have done it (though he claims it was accidental, in alternate moments claiming either that the gun went off on its own or that he was just “shooting at seals” for fun, but missed… as if tourists at a viewing pier in San Francisco are allowed to take pot shots at the seals).

The villain, Francisco Sanchez, has at least seven felony convictions for drug trafficking (so yes, we would call him a demon even if he hadn’t killed Miss Steinle; he’s killed plenty of addicts by dealing their drugs). He has been deported five times. He was caught and released by the city of San Francisco because it’s a “sanctuary city,” a city that attracts illegal foreign criminals because it’s on record promising to shelter them from immigration authorities. There’s even a shocker about the gun he used; it’s reported to be a handgun that was either stolen from, or misplaced by, a federal agent last year.

Oh yes, there’s much to say about this case.

A Cornucopia of Issues

The case is rightly bringing the outrageous issue of sanctuary cities to the forefront of debate. When our big cities are hotbeds of crime already – gang-infested, drug-addled, awash in the blood of murder and rape and mugging and armed robbery – why would they put out a welcome mat for even more criminals?

Why let them go, when they catch them, flouting federal law? Why turn a dangerous criminal loose into society, as San Francisco did this spring, by catching Francisco Sanchez and letting him go, free to kill Kathryn Steinle on a sightseeing pier? Yes, sanctuary cities must be stopped; their city fathers must be held accountable for the crimes committed by the criminals they keep setting free.

The case is also, rightly, bringing into focus the nature of our illegal alien problem. While there are many decent, hardworking, well-intentioned people among these immigrants, so frustrated by the lack of opportunity in their home countries that they risk violating our laws to grab a piece of the American Dream (no, we mustn’t accept it, but we can understand it), the flood of illegal aliens is also populated with incredible numbers of criminals. Our open borders are importing a broad mix of people – willing workers seeking the American Dream, loafers seeking the cushy American welfare state, and criminals, seeking a new population of 300 million ready marks.

A rational immigration system would differentiate between the three; our current system allows the latter two to spoil the mix and poison the American electorate’s opinion even of the first.

And the case is also bringing to the fore an issue oft-discussed and decried: the ludicrously short sentences we mete out in punishment for those convicted of crimes. It’s almost impossible to bring a case to trial in our overloaded cities, still more difficult to get a conviction. By the time someone is finally convicted of anything, he has probably been breaking the law for years.

The robbery, rape, mugging or drug deal for which we finally got a conviction was likely his tenth, or twentieth, or fiftieth crime. We need to punish appropriately, but we don’t – we let them go with time served, or after mere months of a multi-year sentence. Our nation’s sentencing must get tougher; there is no excuse for a known violent criminal being allowed back on the streets, while he’s still healthy enough to do it again.

As awful as this horrific killing was, the silver lining is that, at last, some people are paying attention to these issues, people who hadn’t before. We see a murder, we learn that the criminal was caught and convicted again and again, and yet, released again and again, and we ask why. Like the late Miss Steinle, we call out to our politicians, “Help us!” Solve this problem. Seal these borders. Lock up these convicts and throw away the key. Help us!

The Revolving Door of the United States Border

But perhaps the most disturbing issue about this case is the determination of most Americans to remain locked in an 18th century mindset on the question of what to do with illegal alien criminals, once caught.

Think about this:

The man was deported five times. Yes, five times that we’re sure of. Five times that the government has admitted to.

And part of the media uproar in the wake of this murder is the shouted demand “Why Wasn’t He Deported Again???”

Why on earth is that their question? Deporting him five times didn’t help; he just walked back, or rode back, or flew back, or sailed back, again and again, as hundreds of thousands do, all the time. We have somewhere between 20 and 40 million illegal aliens, at large throughout in the United States, and of these at least 350,000 are known to be convicted criminals.

We deport them, and they return. We deport them again, and they return again. Why in the world is deportation still used in this day and age?

The Changing Face of Transportation

Two or three centuries ago, travel was difficult. Dirt roads were full of muddy ruts, carriage wheels would get stuck, horses would break a leg tripping in a pothole. Inter-continental travel was, for most people, a once-in-a-lifetime decision: a transatlantic crossing might last months, most would sicken and many would die of illness in transit. Even just a century ago, in the age of the Titanic and the Lusitania, only the rich would travel from country to country on a regular basis. For all but the rich, it was a matter of permanent migration.

In those days, deportation worked. If you sent someone back home to Europe, or Asia, or South America, they stayed there. Deportation was a reasonable approach to the problem of border-jumpers and minor foreign criminals. Once you ejected them, they were unlikely to return.

The advances of the 20th century changed all that. Distances have shortened as transportation has improved. You can accomplish in days what used to take weeks or months. There are daily ferries and cruise ships, hourly airplanes and buses, travelling in and out of the United States at low cost and general comfort. And there’s so much commercial transport now, if one is willing to sacrifice that comfort, one can be a stowaway in a truck or ship or bus. You can deport in the morning and have the criminal back on our soil by nightfall, and don’t think it doesn’t happen!

Conservatives often remind society that there are many timeless truths, timeless approaches. The great Pope Benedict XVI was ushered into office on the power of his stirring sermon in favor of constant truths and in opposition to moral relativism. Our own Framers wrote a Constitution to last the test of time; the brilliant structure and clear limits of our Constitution remain a splendid plan today, 228 years after it was written. Recognizing this, conservatives sometimes get an undue reputation for sticking with the ways of the past.

But this is untrue. In fact, the American Right opposes the Left’s rejection of “all that is old on principle” – the Right opposes the Left’s advocacy of “change for the sake of change”… but that does not mean that the Right is stuck in the past.

In fact, the American Right can tell the difference between timeless truths and technological changes. The Right can and does advocate updating policy to preserve the spirit of the law and the spirit of the American Way. If deportation is no longer appropriate or effective as a tool for respecting our borders and fighting crime, it is long past time to look for other solutions.

Deportation is simply no longer a logical tool. Our nation spends millions on bus fare, train fare, and plane fare, every year, just to send people to a border that they’ll jump again as soon as we shut our eyes. It’s a waste of time and money. Over the past hundred years, deportation has gone from being a tool to being nothing but an incredibly expensive placebo. And somehow, our nation’s thinkers have failed to notice the change.

Alternatives to Deportation

When a person commits a crime on United States soil, that person is our problem. Merely returning him to his country of origin has proven to be pointless, as that country may not take him, may accept him and then release him, may even accept him and then facilitate his return to the United States. There ARE countries, after all, that just view the USA as a handy dumping ground for their own problem populations, no matter whether those problems are the unemployed, the unemployable or the criminal.

We can build the long-promised “virtual wall” along our southern border… a combination of walls and fences and minefields and electrified barriers. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start. By making it harder to cross for the first time, we’re also making it harder to cross for the second, third, fourth, and fifth.

We can enforce existing immigration law, which would dissuade more newcomers from flouting the law and entering in the first place, ahead of those honorable immigrants who wait their turn and do it right.

And we can have a separate, and tougher, criminal justice approach for illegal immigrants than the one we have for citizens.

Don’t think that’s some groundbreaking proposal, by the way. We ALREADY have numerous criminal justice approaches today. The nation has always had courts administered by the military for our servicemen, courts administered by Customs for international trade violations, military tribunals for POWs and other foreign criminals caught in conjunction with a war. And so too, we have a special criminal justice approach for illegal aliens.

The problem is that our criminal justice approach for illegals is easier on them than is the system we administer to citizens!

An American citizen convicted of robbery, drug dealing, rape or murder gets sentenced to time served, or to a short or long sentence in a state or federal prison.
But an illegal alien convicted of such crimes is often merely deported, which is often tantamount to being set free… and often, they don’t even bother to try the case; illegal aliens apprehended in conjunction with crimes are frequently just deported immediately, the case closed without trial because deportation – theoretically – rendered a trial unnecessary.
Honestly, is this a sane approach? Does this double standard – try and imprison the citizen criminal, set the illegal alien criminal free – make any sense at all? I’m no advocate for the American criminal element, but honestly, wouldn’t they have a right to object to such unequal treatment?

It is time to turn it around, and be tougher on the illegal alien criminals. Deportation should be limited to people who have overstayed their visas but committed no other crimes. If someone is a burglar, put him in jail. A drug dealer? Put him in jail. A mugger? Put him in jail. A murderer, violent rapist, child molester, or armed robber? Execute him.

As long as the criminal element knows that the USA is easier on foreign criminals that we are on our own homegrown criminals, we will remain a target destination for the world’s worst criminals.

Only if we turn around this reputation, and return to the good sense of a nation that values its law-abiding citizens more than its gate-crashing villains, only then will the criminals of the world learn that America is no place for them.

Only when we eliminate deportation, and return to the time-honored punishments of the cellblock and the executioner’s hood, will we finally be on track toward making America a safe and prosperous nation once again.

Copyright 2015 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based international trade compliance trainer. A former leader of the Ethnic American Council and Chicagoland chapter of Young Americans for Freedom in the 1980s, and a county chairman of the Milwaukee Republican Party in the 1990s, his columns are regularly found in Illinois Review.

Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow John F. Di Leo on Facebook or LinkedIn, or on Twitter at @johnfdileo, or on his own website at

Insight into How We Are Turning into Greece

by Mark homebarrons-cover-3

In order to turn a town, city, state, or nation into Greece, you just need obscure terminology and plausible deniability.

The New York Time’s Dealbook blog has a great recent post: “Bad Math and a Coming Public Pension Crisis.”

The thing to remember when you read the post is that someone could have reported this five years ago or ten years ago. It could have been an above-the-fold headline instead of a blog post. It could have been a series of stories.

But no one at the Times wants to do that. They work for the people who plunder us and hope to get out of the game before it collapses. A story like this shows that the cracks in the foundation are now too obvious to be ignored.

When Jim Palermo was serving as a trustee of the village of La Grange, Ill., he noticed something peculiar about the local police officers and firefighters. They were not going to live as long as might be expected, at least according to pension tables.

After Mr. Palermo dug into the numbers, he found that the actuary — the person who advises pension plan trustees about how much money to set aside — was using a mortality table from 1971 that showed La Grange’s roughly 100 police officers and firefighters were expected to die, on average, before reaching 75, compared with 79 under a more recent table.

That seems like obvious fraud with a plan to be out of the system before someone realized it was broken and was held responsible for fixing it. By using the wrong tables, the government was given a false justification for not setting aside as much money.

Assuming shorter life spans reduces annual contributions and frees up money for other things, like bigger current paychecks. And if the plan bases pensions on pay, as those in most American cities do, shortening the workers’ life spans on paper could lead to both fatter paychecks now and bigger pensions in the future. In La Grange’s case, those four years meant tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to each retiree.

Now actuaries are worried about getting blamed for the looming economic implosion that will soon set upon us. The odd thing is that these worried actuaries use language that seems to indicate they think members of their profession are being wrongly blamed and then flip to language that indicates they are guilty.

[See also, “Warren Buffet Is as Much a “Tapeworm” as the Pensions He Finally Talks About.”]

“Actuaries make a juicy target,” said Mary Pat Campbell, an actuary who responded to the board’s call for comments.

She expressed concern that elected officials were using actuaries to lend respectability to “questionable behavior” like funding pensions with borrowed money, picking risky investments and “enacting benefit improvements based on lowballed costs.”

Other commentators have focused on the opacity of actuaries’ calculations and reports to the boards of trustees that govern public pension plans.

Trustees need clear and honest projections and do not receive them, a former pension trustee from Kentucky, Christopher Tobe, wrote.

I don’t know if the trustees really wanted “clear and honest projections,” but it was obviously the actuaries job to provide them regardless.

Another commentator, Mark Glennon, told the board that actuaries were churning out reports that no one but other actuaries could understand, providing cover for elected officials who were letting problems spin out of control.

“Chicago represents the most glaring example,” wrote Mr. Glennon, the founder of an online news service, WirePoints, which covers the fiscal morass in Illinois. “An actuary could have looked only briefly at some of its pension reports from years ago and seen the calamity to come. Reporters, political leadership and most pension trustees could not. Those who could understand were able to remain silent.”

But reporters could have asked for assistance. They didn’t want to know.

Pensions are massively underfunded now all over the country.





Cartoon - Did you Vote for obama


The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows:

At approximately 5 PM Washington time, reports came in through secure-channels that Special Mission Benghazi was under attack. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey summoned the President,and briefed him on the crisis, face to face.

Subsequent to that brief meeting, President Obama proceeded to the White House to dine in his living quarters.

After supper, Barack Obama had a telephone conference scheduled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett was present for that conference, which was held due to problems the President was having with the perception of him snubbing Netanyahu in previous, formal encounters.

The telephone call between Obama and Netanyahu carried on for a full two-hours, creating the appearance of respect between the two world leaders.

As that meeting drew to a close, Ms. Jarrett, who is also the Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, went from the living quarters to the White House Situation Room, where the attack in Benghazi was being monitored by Dempsey, Panetta and other top-ranking officials.

Whether she was instructed by the President to go there, or if she went of her own volition, is only known by the President and herself.

A critical question that needed to be answered, and the sole military-order that could have launched offensive-actions, neutralizing the Ansar al Sharia terrorists attacks on the Mission (the purpose of which is detailed here) and its subsequent attacks on the adjacent CIA Annex, was the issuance of “Cross Border Authority”, an order that can only be issued by the Commander in Chief, himself.

As was reported earlier by Conservative Report, Cross Border Authority was denied.

Two revelations are deeply troubling:


First, it is reported that an Army Special Forces team was present with an AC-130U Spooky (also known as a Spectre Gunship) on the tarmac at the airport in Tripoli, Libya. The Spooky is a technologically sophisticated, tactical aircraft, operated by the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command.

It operates under the overall Special Operations Command stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, which is reportedly in charge of all military special operations units, including: Army Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Rangers and certain Marine units, as well as the USAF AC-130Us, and “stealth Blackhawks,” used in the Bin Laden raid.

Sp Forces thumbThe AC-130U Spooky is equipped with weapons that sync with laser-designators, like those that Woods, Doherty and Ubben had on that lonely rooftop above the CIA Annex. The laser-designator was used to “paint” the mortar targets during the attack, subsequently claiming the lives of Woods and Doherty, and leaving Ubben without a leg. Had the AC-130U been on station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, moments before the mortar rounds were fired, instead of “awaiting further instructions,” the entire outcome of the Benghazi fiasco would have been different.

Add to that, a team of Green Berets on the ground to secure and/or evacuate the Annex, and the outcome would have been two SEALS still alive, and a mess of dead terrorists.

Val JarrettThe second, and most troubling aspect of the refusal to issue Cross Border Authority is, who issued the refusal. Rather than the President, the Commander In Chief, making critical decisions, granting or denying the authority to initiate offensive-actions in support of our valiant fighting men, the decision not to take action was made by a person, to whom the people did not elect, nor did the Congress have confirmation power over.

The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President’s Advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

And this is a “phony” scandal?