web analytics

Apr 18

New low ‘blow’: Coke eyed at Secret Service ho-down

The Secret Service sure knows how to party.

Cocaine and several bottles of whiskey apparently fueled the elite agents’ boneheaded fling with about 20 hookers at a posh hotel in Cartagena, Colombia, a hotel staffer told The Post.

The employee responded to the trashed room with police and other Hotel El Caribe workers when one prostitute raised hell after a Secret Service member initially refused to pay her.

“When I went upstairs I walked into a messy room. The room was littered with two whiskey bottles — and a line of white powder, I believed to be cocaine, was on top of a round glass table in the room,” the staffer told The Post.

ROOM SERVICED: Secret Service agents remained after colleagues were sent home following a bash with hookers like these in a Colombia hotel.

see more Videos

He painted a picture of morning-after mayhem in the lobby — just two days before President Obama landed in the country for an international summit.

“The prostitute was screaming in the lobby that he didn’t pay her,” the early-morning shift worker recalled. “She looked like she had a few drinks in her. She just wanted what was promised to her.

“She was very upset,” he said.

“The agent was supposed to pay her a [bar] fine on top of the pay rate for her sexual services, but he didn’t,” he said, referring to the local practice of paying a fee to the red-light district hot spot Pley Club to take one of its “dancers” out on a date, and then another fee directly to the woman.

The Secret Service didn’t return calls for comment.

At least 11 Secret Service members and 10 US military personnel partied with as many as 21 hookers at the hotel, according to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

“Who were these women? Could they have been members of groups hostile to the United States? Could they have planted bugs, disabled weapons, or in any other ways jeopardized security of the president or our country?” she fumed.

“Given the number of personnel involved, does this indicate a problem with the culture of the Secret Service?”
Additional reporting by Geoff Earle and Post Wire Services

Read more:

Permanent link to this article: http://mbteaparty.org/news/?p=491

Apr 13

Was the Secret Service getting hookers for Obama?

UPDATE: Secret Service hooker flap over $47 (or just 83,475 naughty lil’ pesos)

A Secret Service agent shamed the United States after a wild night of babes and booze that ended in an argument with a Colombian hooker over as little as $47.

Read more:

SECURITY SCANDAL: President Obama checks out singer Shakira yesterday in Colombia.

Secret Service prostitute scandal: 12 of Obama’s agents sent home from Colombia amid allegations at least one was found with hooker

The bawdy bodyguards were relieved of duty because of accusations involving sex workers in Cartagena, Colombia, the site of a summit of more than 30 world leaders,

By Rich Schapiro / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

A dozen Secret Service agents assigned to protect President Obama in Colombia were sent home amid allegations that at least one of them was found cavorting with prostitutes.

The bawdy bodyguards were relieved of duty because of accusations involving sex workers in Cartagena, Colombia, the site of a summit of more than 30 world leaders, the Associated Press reported.
“There have been allegations of misconduct made against Secret Service personnel” in the Colombian port city, Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said, refusing to confirm that prostitution was involved.

But Jon Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, told the Washington Post the accusations relate to at least one agent having involvement with prostitutes in Cartagena.

Donovan said the incidents in question occurred before the President’s arrival Friday night.

The scandal marks a major black eye for the White House — and threatened to overshadow Obama’s economic and trade agenda at the Summit of the Americas.

The White House had no comment.

Twelve Secret Service agents were sent home from the Summit of the Americas amid prostitution allegations.

Obama was attending a leaders’ dinner Friday night at Cartagena’s historic Spanish fortress.

He was set to hold meetings with regional leaders Saturday and Sunday.

The accused agents had been shipped back to their permanent places of duty. They were being replaced by other agency personnel, Donovan said.

The matter was turned over to the agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles the agency’s internal affairs.

“These personnel changes will not affect the comprehensive security plan that has been prepared in advance of the President’s trip,” Donovan said.

It was not the first time members of Obama’s security detail landed in hot water.

Last November, a federal agent with the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security was charged with second-degree murder after shooting a man during a dispute outside a McDonald’s in Hawaii.

The agent, Christopher Deedy, was off-duty at the time, but was on the island to do security work in advance of Obama’s trip to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

In August, an off-duty Secret Service agent was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving in Decorah, Iowa, where he was helping arrange security for Obama’s bus trip through three Midwestern states, the Washington Post reported. The agent, Daniel Valencia was sentenced to two days in jail with credit for time served, and a fine of $1,250.

With News Wire Services

Read more:

Permanent link to this article: http://mbteaparty.org/news/?p=470

Apr 07

Obama Says One Thing and Does Another Altogether



Did you believe that?

For those who have paid attention, President Obama has a knack for saying one thing and doing another altogether: a knack for claiming one position while actually occupying another. We first saw this when this when he was campaigning for president in 2008 and the Supreme Court struck down DC’s gun ban via the Heller decision. At the time, he claimed to mutually support the gun ban and the 2nd Amendment. (Proving this wasn’t a fluke, when Chicago’s gun ban was struck down 2 years later via the McDonald decision, he again claimed he supported both the gun ban and the 2nd Amendment.)

Perhaps his position on a mandate by which government forces citizens to buy healthcare is an even clearer example. When campaigning for the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, he differentiated between himself and fellow candidate Hillary Clinton by criticizing her plan to use a mandate as an “enforcement mechanism” to “charge people who…don’t have healthcare.” He claimed the use of a mandate for those purposes was something he couldn’t go along with, something that demonstrated a “genuine difference” between himself and Clinton.

However, on April 4, 2012, Obama urged the Supreme Court not to rule against the mandate in ObamaCare because his healthcare reforms cannot survive “in the absence of an individual mandate.”

It’s arguable that there isn’t anything that demonstrates Saul Alinsky’s impact on Obama better than these flip flops and duplicitous positions. For it was Alinsky who spent his life teaching would-be radicals (like Obama) that you can say what you have to say to get over the hump, but once you’re over the hump, you do whatever you want to do. In other words, it’s okay to present yourself as something moderate, even centrist, for the purposes of securing power, and once you’ve secured that power it is perfectly acceptable to revert to who (and what) you really are.

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky demonstrates this with a look at how Vladimir Lenin was able to overthrow the government in pre-communist Russia:
[Lenin said, “The government has] the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns it will be through the bullet.” And so it was.

This is very clear. Lenin talked one way while out of power in order to get into power. And once in power, he used every force available to him—violence included—to maintain the power he had gained.

In another place in Rules of Radicals, Alinsky talks of how he once had the opportunity to take a politician down by revealing aspects of that politician’s personal life to the public. But to the shock of his followers, Alinsky chose not to reveal those things about the politician even though it would have given him the upper hand in the contest.
Wrote Alinsky: “The fact that they fight that way doesn’t mean I have to do it. To me, dragging a person’s private life into this muck is loathsome and nauseous.”

But just when his followers thought there might be something noble about the radical, Alinsky instructed them: “But, if I had been convinced that the only way we could win was to use it, then without any reservations I would have used [the information].”

Do you see this folks? There are no fixed norms, nor are there concrete right and wrongs or honest convictions. Rather, there are pragmatic answers given only with a view to gaining or maintaining power. In situation A you don’t do what is right, rather, you do whatever is takes to get to situation B, even if what it takes is telling bald-face lie after bald-face lie. And so the progression goes.

Wrote Alinsky: “In war, the end justifies almost any means.” And for Alinsky, as for Lenin and now for Obama, politics is war. Thus a politician is justified in hiding his intention to ban guns while running for office, and likewise justified in reversing position and working “under the radar” for gun bans once in office. Also, a politician is justified in pointing out the problems with a healthcare mandate while running for office, and also justified in reversing course and pushing a healthcare mandate once in office.

These are the Rules for Radicals.

Permanent link to this article: http://mbteaparty.org/news/?p=455

Mar 30

Obama and media has reduced us to Abbott and Costello!

Abbott and Costello

The following will help to prepare you for Friday’s nonsensical jobs data.

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%…

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work… Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise, it would be 16%. You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an Democrat.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

And now you know why Obama’s unemployment figures are improving!

Permanent link to this article: http://mbteaparty.org/news/?p=441

Mar 25

Testing how dumb they are, Obama tells college kids we can replace oil with pond scum

By Kevin “Coach’ Collins

Now that the Election of 2012 is heating up Barack Obama and his Party have to build some rationale for reelecting him. This process starts with developing a feel for just how much the halfwits who vote Democrat will fall for. Obama knows that in 2008 they fell for vague gibberish about “Hope and Change” without knowing who he is or what he really wanted to do to us. Now four years later even the dumbest among “Rev. Obama’s” flock realizes he has not delivered on his promises and they still don’t know who he is.

Consequently, it’s back to the drawing board. You can almost hear David Axelrod saying, “Send out Wasserman-Schultz and Pelosi to tell the dimwits unemployment is really going down the economy is doing great and the gas prices are up because Republicans won’t let the boss drill anywhere.”

Recently Obama spoke to a group of ill-educated clapping seals at the University of Miami. Admitting that he doesn’t have a “silver bullet solution” for high gas prices he said, “We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae – you’ve got a bunch of algae out here. If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright. Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.”

“Believe it or not?” think about what he said. “If we can figure out how to make energy from [algae]… we can replace up to 17 percent of oil import[s]…” Doesn’t this mean “we” don’t know how to make energy out of algae? Of course it does, but for purposes of seeing what the dummies will believe Obama might just as well have said we can replace 27% or 37% or 97% of oil imports with algae. They would have clapped anyway; critical thinking isn’t taught at most colleges anymore.

What the quislings in the media won’t report is “we” have already tried making energy out of algae and those efforts were abandoned a year ago.

Shell ended its tests of the viability of algae as a fuel last February amid reports from the Rand Corporation and biofuel experts that algae has little potential of being a valuable part of our fuel supply any time before Obama’s new crop of clapping seals approaches middle age- if at all.

Because it is so preposterous, “algae as genuine fuel” won’t be heard from again. Nevertheless, it is a telling development. Even suggesting it signals that Obama knows blaming Republicans for $5.00 a gallon gas will be a stretch. This one will only work on the ill-educated who, if they bother to vote, are already supporting Obama anyway.

The “let’s put pond scum in our gas tanks” scam won’t work on the rest of us.

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use these links:



What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

Permanent link to this article: http://mbteaparty.org/news/?p=433

Older posts «

» Newer posts