Saturday, January 21, 2012


“Would you go to combat with this man?”
Phil “Hands”Handley
Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Many years ago as a flight commander in an F-4 squadron, I was required to write an
OER (Officer Effectiveness Report) on each of the pilots and WSOs (weapon systems officers) in my charge. This onerous task was flawed from the outset since it was assumed that the rater would render a totally honest assessment of an individual officer’s unique skills and capabilities as compared to a baseline his peers.

Of course this did not happen, as the slightest negative comment would almost always assure an undeserved denial of promotion… hence the infamous OER inflation creep emerged… where almost everyone was awarded “walk on water” evaluations.

Consequently, continuing PME (professional military education), endorsements from higher headquarters, the officer’s official picture, error free and perfectly typed and punctuated paperwork, assurance that every available space for comments was used, additional duties, and a dozen other irreverent factors that had little or nothing to do with the officer’s primary job as a fighter pilot or WSO.

All of this flawed process was exacerbated by the fact that this occurred during the “pre-computer era”, thus denying the rater with data banks of “flowery remarks”, synonyms, spell checkers, and printers.
It was during this period that a Marine F-4 exchange pilot was assigned to my flight. After about six months, I got a letter fromHQ Marine Corps requesting that I prepare an OER for this pilot.

The OER form was enclosed, with instructions that it was to be
prepared by me, in my handwriting and returned as a single copy.

There were several blocks to be checked, followed by a space for remarks that was only adequate for two to three short sentences… then above my signature block was a question with two choices: “Would you go to combat with this officer?” Check either “yes or no.”

Talk about cutting through the crap! I was impressed at the time and to this day have never forgotten its bottom line simplicity and brilliance.

Try applying that test to the current crop of “leaders” who are in charge of America’s destiny.
For starters:
President BarrackObama
Vice-President JoeBiden
The President’s cabinet
The President’sCzars
Attorney General Eric Holder
A majority of our elected congress
The main stream media
Al Gore and his Climate Change BS
Senator John (two silver stars) Kerry
Others too numerous to mention

Maybe it’s just me, but I damn well would not willingly go to combat with any of them. How in hell did we let this happen before our very eyes… on our watch? We as a nation had better get a grip, turn out in mass for the 2012 national election and throw these self-serving jerks out of power before it is too late. I fear that four more years of political correctness, blatant socialist/Marxist policies, lack of backbone and disregard for our constitution will do irreparable damage.
If we are to remain the greatest nation the world has ever seen, which was built on the loyalty, integrity and sacrifice of generations of patriots whose gym bag our current leadership couldn’t carry… we best get it done.

Will Iran Answer Obama's Third Letter.. They Didn't Answer the first TWO ?

Last Updated:1:34 AM, January 21, 2012
Posted:10:01 PM, January 20, 2012
Last week, Tehran circles tipped a “top secret message” from President Obama to Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei. This week, almost everyone seemed to know (or pretend to know) something about the mystery letter. In an editorial Thursday, the daily Kayhan, published by Khamenei’s office, claimed Obama had adopted “a supplicatory tone, seeking to ingratiate himself in the eyes of the supreme guide.”
But let’s start with what everyone agrees about the letter:
* This is the third time that Obama has written to Iranian leaders. The first two letters were addressed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who didn’t bother to reply but later sent two letters of his own to Obama, getting no response.
* By writing to Khamenei, Obama acknowledged that his administration no longer regards Ahmadinejad as the key player in Tehran.
* By writing to Khamenei, Obama returns to a tradition started by President Jimmy Carter, who sent handwritten letters to the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini didn’t bother to reply, either.
* Obama’s letter was delivered by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a sign that Washington regards Baghdad as a possible mediator with Tehran.
* In America, news of the letter came under headlines about Obama warning Tehran that closing the Strait of Hormuz was a “red line.” In Tehran, the headline was different: “Obama promises to take no hostile action against the Islamic Republic!”
On the surface, at least, Tehran sees the letter as a sign of weakness. “The letter begins with lots of bluster,” says Hussein Ebrahimi, vice-chairman of the Committee on National Security at the Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament. “Later, however, the American adopts a conciliatory tone and invites the Islamic Republic to negotiation. Obama pledges not to take hostile action against us.”
Ebrahimi said other factors might have persuaded Obama to write the letter — Iran’s “rising power in the region,” or “electoral calculations” (“He does not want Iran to turn him into another Jimmy Carter”).
Hussein Naqavai, another Majlis member, claims Obama “acted out of fear.” “Obama has proposed a red telephone between Tehran and Washington,” he says. “This is an admission that Iran should be consulted on major international issues.”
Iranian leaders often claim that their Islamic Republic is the successor to the USSR as challenger to American “world domination.” Mohsen Rezai, a former Revolutionary Guard commander, sees Obama’s letter as “a clever maneuver to present the United States as guarantor of security in international waters.”
“However,” Rezai says, “that role is now assumed by Iran.”
Rhetoric aside, the letter may have opened a window of opportunity to reduce the current tension. The fact that, this time, no one in Tehran says that the letter has been consigned to the trash can is remarkable in itself.
Another novelty is that everyone more than hints at the possibility of an answer. “We shall study the matter carefully,” says Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. “If we deem that an answer is needed, the necessary steps will be taken.”
Also interesting is the lack of an outright rejection of Obama’s reported suggestion of “talks on all issues, with full respect for mutual interests.” This is important because, under a notorious law passed by the Majlis in the 1980s, any talk with the US is forbidden.
More important, perhaps, leaks about the letter produce what looks like an agenda for possible direct talks between the foes.
To start with, it appears that Obama has made no mention of Iran’s controversial uranium-enrichment program. Demands that the program be scrapped are at the center of four US-backed resolutions passed by the UN Security Council.
Iran, however, wants the US and its allies to accept the program as a fait accompli. “We should move beyond that old issue,” said Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi this week.
By putting the focus on the Strait of Hormuz, Obama makes it easy for Iran to appear to be making concessions. Iran doesn’t want the strait closed because that would mean an end to its own oil exports; no other country in the world would lose more. By solemnly undertaking not to close the strait, Iran would give Obama a meaningless concession, but something that might look good for the president in his re-election campaign.
In exchange, Iranian leaders openly demand that Obama drop the threat of an embargo on Iran’s oil exports. “If Obama has a red line, so do we,” says Majlis member Esmail Kothari. “Our red line is an oil embargo.”
Obama may have blundered his way into persuading the Iranians to rise to the bait for the first time in a long while. Whether they bite or not is a different matter

Friday, January 20, 2012



President Obama might be compelled to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline before the election after all. 
Though the president just rejected a permit for the controversial project, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman told Fox News that he expects to send the Obama administration a new proposed route for the pipeline well before Election Day
"I fully expect we could get it done certainly in the early September, August time frame," the governor told Fox News on Thursday. "I would send the letter back to the president of the United States saying we approve it and if he were decisive, he could turn around and approve it shortly thereafter, well before the November election." 
The White House, in justifying its decision to turn down the permit, blamed Republicans for forcing a decision in a tightened time frame. Congressional Republicans had attached a provision to last year's short-term payroll tax cut extension requiring a presidential decision on Keystone in 60 days, a time frame administration officials warned would not be sufficient. 
But all along, administration officials have also invoked the concerns over the pipeline of Nebraska officials, including Heineman, in justifying their handling of the issue. 
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in reviewing the history of the dispute Wednesday, said "concerns were raised about the environmental impacts on the air and water quality in Nebraska." 
Yet while those concerns contributed to the State Department decision late last year to delay the federal review process, top Nebraska officials were not on board with the president's decision Wednesday to reject the permit. 
"Right now, I think they're looking for a convenient excuse to get it beyond the election. Let's do what's right for the country. Let's put America back to work," Heineman said. 
Nebraska lawmakers had earlier raised concern about the impact the initial pipeline route, which runs from Canada to Texas, would have on an important and vast underground water source in Nebraska. In November, the governor signed a bill that would pay for a new state-run environmental study of a new route that TransCanada agreed to pursue. 
But Heineman disputes any suggestion that the federal government needs lots of time to review his state's new study. He said the project already received initial approval from the State Department for the earlier route, before the department backed off upon objections from environmentalists. 
As Obama rejected the permit for Keystone saying there wasn't enough time to review at the federal level, Heineman questioned why -- since the state and the company have already agreed to reroute the pipeline through a less sensitive area. 
"So again, the State Department had already approved the route that was much more environmentally sensitive, and so in my view, he should have said 'yes' to allow this to move forward. There's so much at stake for this country," he said. 
Heineman said his state will have completed the new study by about August, and sees no reason for further delay. 
"I would send a letter to the Department of State saying in Nebraska, we approve," he said. "At that stage, all they've got to then say it's in the national interest. And again, I think you could say that today. They've been at this for three years." 
Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns echoed Heineman's concerns in a statement Wednesday. He said Obama's decision was a sign he "lacks faith" in Nebraska's ability to choose a new route. 
"By arguing that the Nebraska route could force them to deny the permit, he's implying Nebraska can't get it right. There is no legitimate justification for the delay. To suggest a few dozen miles of the route in Nebraska -- which will be identified by the governor, consistent with the law -- affects the overall public interest for more than 1,600 miles of pipeline is laughable and reeks of political gamesmanship," he said. 
But Obama and his team said Republicans forced his hand. Obama said in a statement Wednesday that his call was "not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people." 
Carney said Thursday it is a fallacy to suggest that anything other than the insistence by House Republicans to impose the 60-day deadline is responsible for the decision. 
TransCanada has already announced that it will seek a new permit at the federal level.
Republicans in Congress also said they would not throw in the towel on the issue. Some called for Obama to reverse his decision. 
Yet the debate is steeped in election-year politics. Obama is caught between two factions of his base on the decision over Keystone, a reality that critics claimed contributed to the decision to delay the project in the first place. Unions are clamoring for the pipeline, saying thousands of jobs are at stake, while environmentalists are vehemently opposed to it. 
The environmentalists applauded Obama for his announcement Wednesday. 
"President Obama has shown bold leadership in standing up to Big Oil and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline," Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. 
Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report

Read more:

New Prospect for Washington ? His Food Stamps come in Tuesday ?

Hopefully he will run for President or at least Congress...
He appears to have what most current politicians lack...

Thursday, January 19, 2012


Kulula is a low-cost South-African airline that doesn't take itself too seriously. Check out their new livery! And have a read about their Customer Relations AFTER the pictures.

Kulula is an Airline with head office situated in Johannesburg .

Kulula airline attendants make an effort to make the in-flight
"safety lecture" and announcements a bit more entertaining.
Here are some real examples that have been heard or reported:
On a Kulula flight, (there is no assigned seating, you just sit where
you want) passengers were apparently having a hard time choosing,
when a flight attendant announced,
"People, people we're not picking out furniture here, find a seat

and get in it!"
On another flight with a very "senior" flight attendant crew, the pilot said,
"Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached cruising altitude and will be turning
down the cabin lights. This is for your comfort and to enhance the
appearance of your flight attendants."
On landing, the stewardess said,
"Please be sure to take all of your belongings.. If you're going to leave
anything, please make sure it's something we'd like to have."
"There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but there are only 4 ways
out of this airplane." 
"Thank you for flying Kulula. We hope you enjoyed giving us the

business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride."
As the plane landed and was coming to a stop at Durban Airport ,

a lone voice came over the loudspeaker:
"Whoa, big fella. WHOA!"
After a particularly rough landing during thunderstorms in the Karoo,
a flight attendant on a flight announced,
"Please take care when opening the overhead compartments because,

after a landing like that, sure as hell everything has shifted."
From a Kulula employee:
"Welcome aboard Kulula 271 to Port Elizabeth . To operate your seat
belt, insert the metal tab into the buckle, and pull tight. It works just like every other seat belt; and, if you don't know how to operate one, you probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised."
"In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, masks will descend
from the ceiling. Stop screaming, grab the mask, and pull it over your
face. If you have a small child travelling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs. If you are travelling with more than one small child, pick your favorite."
"Weather at our destination is 50 degrees with some broken clouds,
but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive. Thank you, and remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Kulula Airlines."
"Your seats cushions can be used for flotation; and in the event of
an emergency water landing, please paddle to shore and take them with our compliments."
"As you exit the plane, make sure to gather all of your belongings.

Anything left behind will be distributed evenly among the flight attendants. Please do not leave children or spouses.." (Awww)
And from the pilot during his welcome message:
"Kulula Airlines is pleased to announce that we have some of the best
flight attendants in the industry. Unfortunately, none of them are on this flight!"
Heard on Kulula 255 just after a very hard landing in Cape Town :

The flight attendant came on the intercom and said,
"That was quite a bump and I know what y'all are thinking.

I'm here to tell you it wasn't the airline's fault, it wasn't the pilot's fault, it wasn't the flight  attendant's fault, it was the asphalt."
Overheard on a Kulula flight into Cape Town , on a particularly windy

and bumpy day: During the final approach, the Captain really had to fight it. After an extremely hard landing, the Flight Attendant said,
"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to The Mother City. Please remain
in your seats with your seat belts fastened while the Captain taxis
what's left of our airplane to the gate!"
Another flight attendant's comment on a less than perfect landing:
"We ask you to please remain seated as Captain Kangaroo bounces us to the terminal."
An airline pilot wrote that on this particular flight he had hammered
his ship into the runway really hard. The airline had a policy which required the first officer to stand at the door while the passengers exited, smile, and give them a "Thanks for flying our airline". He said that, in light of his bad landing, he had a hard time looking the
passengers in the eye, thinking that someone would have a smart
comment. Finally everyone had gotten off except for a little old lady walking with a cane. She said,
"Sir, do you mind if I ask you a question?"
"Why, no Ma'am," said the pilot. "What is it?"
The little old lady said,
"Did we land, or were we shot down?"
After a real crusher of a landing in Johannesburg , the attendant

came on with, "Ladies and Gentlemen, please remain in your seats
until Captain Crash and the Crew have brought the aircraft to a
screeching halt against the gate. And, once the tire smoke has
cleared and the warning bells are silenced, we will open the door and you can pick your way through the wreckage to the terminal.."
Part of a flight attendant's arrival announcement:
"We'd like to thank you folks for flying with us today..

And, the next time you get the insane urge to go blasting through the skies in a pressurized metal tube, we hope you'll think of Kulula Airways."
Heard on a Kulula flight:
"Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to smoke, the smoking section
on this airplane is on the wing..
If you can light 'em, you can smoke 'em."  (Oh Darn)

Wednesday, January 18, 2012



Richard Rubin Sentenced to Ten Months in Federal Prison[Image]
RICHARD RUBIN AND DIANA WASSERMAN-RUBINRichard Rubin — husband of former Broward County Commissioner Diana Wasserman-Rubin, who still faces seven felony charges of her own — was sentenced this morning to ten months in federal prison.Rubin, 66, pleaded guilty in April to federal tax evasion after failing to report $100,000 in fees he received from the town of Davie for a land deal he brokered in 2004.With attorney David Bogenschutz at his side, Rubin managed to get only ten months up the river — which is in accordance with sentencing guidelines but much less than the maximum penalty of five years.Rubin had said in court that he and the wife faced financial burdens from damage done to their home by Hurricane Wilma and also owed on a loan he could not repay — which is why he attempted to cheat on his taxes a bit.That also wasn’t too long after Rubin took in $1.1 million for writing grants for the town of Southwest Ranches — grants that were approved in part by the votes of his wife while she was a county commissioner.Then, the probable-cause affidavit released last year contended, the couple was living quite lavishly — including spending money on artwork, cruises, vacations to Europe, and a $150,000 home repair project.Rubin wasn’t charged with tax evasion until April of this year.The State Attorney’s Office, however, charged Wasserman-Rubin last year with seven counts of felony unlawful compensation related to her votes for her husband’s grant-writing.Rubin has until August 31 to report to his new home at a minimum-security prison.


Dear Mr. Holland:
Thank you for contacting the Office of The Governor regarding your concerns with the Keystone Pipeline.  I am including links to our Congressional Delegation, the ND Pipeline Authority and information on the proposed new refinery as per your request.
Senator John Hoeven                                                                      (202) 224-2551 - Washington Office
Senator Kent Conrad                                                                  (202) 224-2043 – Washington Office
Representative Rick Berg                                                                       (202) 225-2611 – Washington Office
Justin Kringstad, ND Pipeline Authority                                  (701) 220-6227
It was very nice to visit with you today per phone and thank you for writing.
Barb Peske
Constituent Services Director
Office of Governor Jack Dalrymple
600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 101
Bismarck, North Dakota  58505-0001
(701) 328-2208
Fax: (701) 328-2205
From: Apache [] On Behalf Of Bill Holland
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:32 PM
To: -Info-Governor's Office
Subject: Bill Holland

Contact Form Submission

Bill Holland
Phone Number
573 391 0599
Keystone Pipeline
So if Obama doesn't want the pipeline..Why don't you quickly put a consortium together to build the first of a group (If needed) of Refineries in North Dakota to process the Oil from Canada (Including Canada Investors) and Process the Oil There in North Dakota... Makes sense to me ? Oil Companies will invest in this instead of shipping it all the way to Texas..Hell Everybody will invest in this..... Bill Holland
Submitted from on 01/18/2012 - 12:32pm from IP address: []


The Ten Commandments According to Obama....

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) 

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore.

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can ...say Barack Hussein Obama.

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money.

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives.

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian.

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet 

Can Ron Paul Win as a Third Party Candidate?

18 January 2012 No Comment
Can Ron Paul Win as a Third Party Candidate?By Greg Hunter’s
In a new poll, out yesterday, 7 out of 10 Republicans and right leaning independent voters believe Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee for President.  (Click here for that poll.)   Does that mean it’s over for Congressman Ron Paul?  I think it is safe to say it is probably a long shot he will be the Republican nominee, but what about a third party run?  Can Ron Paul win as a third party candidate?  I say that is much less of a long shot, and here’s why.
Let me first say, Dr. Paul has repeatedly said that he has no interest in running as a third party candidate.    I do not know (or have talked to) anyone in his campaign.  This is my objective analysis and nothing more.  Ron Paul as a third party candidate would be much different than the third party candidates of the past.  Conservative presidential candidate Ross Perot of the 1992 and 1996 elections predominantly took votes away from the Republican candidates.  In 1992, national exit polls had Perot splitting the Republican and Democrat vote equally, but it was not split equally in every state.  (Click here for more on this.)  A president is voted in by winning each state’s Electoral College votes.  It’s a winner take all game, so every state gives a certain number to the winner of each state.   Also, Perot spent millions hammering Bush in the 1992 primaries; so, Perot mostly had a negative effect on the Republicans.  The ultra-liberal Ralph Nader’s third party campaign in 2000 took votes away from Al Gore, the Democrat.  More than 97,000 voted for Nader in Florida alone.  Gore would have easily won the election and Florida if Nader would have not run.
Then there is Ron Paul.  He would, no doubt, run on a Libertarian type ticket.  Paul would take votes from Republicans that think Romney is not conservative enough.  After all, he has, so far, come in second in the caucuses and primaries, but that is just with the GOP.  He would take a large percentage of the 40% of people who call themselves “Independent” voters.  Paul also does well with young voters.  In Iowa and New Hampshire, nearly half of all GOP voters under 30 voted for Dr. Paul.  He would probably do well with Democrats in the same group.  He may be booed in South Carolina by the old guard for his anti-war policies, but the young, who would have to fight the wars, think his message is on target.
As far as liberal Democrats go, Paul would carve a significant amount out of President Obama’s base.  Some of the most stinging criticism of the President has come from his own party.  You can’t get much more left leaning than the ACLU, and that organization said the most recent signing of the “Indefinite Detention” bill by the President basically guts the Bill of Rights.  The ACLU says, “The bill contains dangerous, sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provisions.”  The ACLU has vowed to fight this unconstitutional legislation all the way to the Supreme Court.  Even MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow, a self-proclaimed liberal, criticized the President on this issue.  (Click here and hear her nearly 8 minute rant from early December 2011.)   The President also said on 60 Minutes, “. . . some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.”  This statement is absurd because the meltdown of 2008 is 70 times worse than the S&L crisis 20 years ago when 1,000 financial elites were convicted of crimes.  Zero criminal prosecutions of financial elites happened in the wake of the 2008 meltdown.  I think it is safe to say Ron Paul would take some very disgruntled Democrats away from Obama.
On the other hand, GOP candidate Romney would get very few votes from Democrats because, after all, there is little difference between him and Obama on this issue.  Romney thinks “corporations are people.” Romney and the GOP would like you to think the 2008 meltdown is “all the government’s fault” for making the poor defenseless banks loan money to poor people who couldn’t pay it back.  That is a crock!  Don’t take my word for it.  Listen to William Black, former bank regulator and professor of both law and economics, on how zero financial elites have been prosecuted for crime. (Click here for one of many stories.)  Remember, this is what Occupy Wall Street is all about.  Obama and Romney will get very few votes from these folks.
So, Congressman Paul could do something that no other third party candidate has done in recent history– take votes from left, right and center.  This is why both Democrats and Republicans fear and loath him.  I have noted several Ron Paul snubs on both the left and the right, but Democrats seem especially terrified.  Can you imagine Obama debating Dr. Paul on civil liberties, true Wall Street reform, budget deficits or war?  After the New Hampshire primary, liberal commentator Lawrence O’Donnell said John Huntsman was the “real second” when, in fact, Ron Paul was by a significant margin.  “Daily Show” comedian Jon Stewart rants about this stupid and biased comment.  Please watch, it’s funny.
Huntsman was doing so well he dropped out of the race before the next primary in South Carolina.  Dana Bash, also, showed her true biased feelings on CNN in early January when she said she was “worried . . . Ron Paul will continue on long into the spring and summer.”  (Click here to hear the comments of CNN reporter Dana Bash for yourself.)  So, why would Congressman Paul “continue on long into the spring and summer” even if he would likely not win the GOP nomination?  Do you know of any third party primaries out there?   Of course not.  Paul would keep campaigning just to get press and gain votes.  Dr. Paul would love to narrow the field down to just Romney, and he has the money and campaign organization to do it.  When it’s mathematically impossible for Paul to get the GOP nomination, I expect a third party run.  At 76, I can’t imagine this man of conviction to just pull up stakes and leave the presidential race to the two corporate candidates put forth by the Democrats and Republicans.   

Tuesday, January 17, 2012


President's Adviser receives Secret Service Detail - First Ever ?

by Ulsterman on January 17, 2012 with 0 Comments in News
Has an adviser to a president ever received a Secret Service detail?  Apparently Valerie Jarrett does…
In a story initially broken by WhiteHouseDossier reporter Keith Koffler, it appears controversial and highly influential senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett has justified utilizing taxpayer funded Secret Service protection.  Local reports of Jarrett’s recent visit to achurch in Atlanta indicated the presence of Secret Service agents.  Such a presence would be rather unusual for someone simply described as a presidential adviser:
It’s possible that Jarrett has received enough specific and credible threats to justify Secret Service protection, or that the Secret Service has for some other reason calculated that she needs bodyguards. But it’s also possible this is a case of oddly overdoing it – and overusing taxpayerresources.
Is she really such a public figure? I’m sure 90 percent of Americans have little to no idea who she is. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is far better known and spends his time warning terrorists and our foreign adversaries about bad behavior while trumpeting the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I’m sure he does not have protection.
One source of mine, who is knowledgable about what a Secret Service detail would look like, said he spotted Jarrett at Reagan National Airport with her protection as she departed Washington just before Christmas.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...