Friday, November 1, 2013

Secret Service Agent, Quits, Runs for Congress, Slams Obama

Omerta is but rarely broken by military and federal agents, but one has had enough of secrecy, and he body-slams Obama.

Former US Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino left a career that provides a very good salary, tremendous job security, occasional real excitement and status, a pension, and a likelihood of a transition into lucrative second career to take a chance to make a difference.

He notes what few realize about the Obama scandals- that there are so many* that we have a fog  in which we become "Lost in the scandals" - Fast and Furious, Bengahzi, ACORN, the IRS scandal, Pigford, and the list goes on and on. While we have little doubt that thus administration is bent on making criminal activity a matter of routine, but it almost seems that the sheer amount of scandals are intentionally designed to make the success prosecution or investigation, let alone any focus by the public, impossible.

"Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who is running for Congress in Maryland, appeared on the Glenn Beck Program Thursday to discuss why he chose to run for elected office.

“We’re at a very dangerous point, Glenn,” Bongino began. “We’re in a lot of trouble. The president sees government — and I think it’s because of his lack of experience, and maybe community organizing in the past — as like this shiny new toy. And for all the disagreements I had with Clinton, Carter, and Bush, there were always limits. There was that line you just didn’t cross — we cross that seemingly every day…”

Bongino said that we’re “lost in the scandals,” from the IRS targeting conservative organizations to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius “shaking down” the healthcare industry, among others.

“It’s to the point where these scandals in and of themselves [that] would be huge, backbreaking scandals are just lot in the ‘scandal fog’ of this administration,” he said in disbelief. “It’s worse than people know; I’m not trying to scare you either.”...."

You can find Mr. Bongino's platform in the link from The Blaze above the excerpt.


In other news, the purging of military leaders who do not walk Obama's chalk line, one that requires enthusiastic support of the radical gay agenda, a willingness to fire on American citizens, and the support for introduction of females into military fields (MOS) that need strong and aggressive killers continues:

"In Obama’s America, the military must forsake their constitutional oath in favor of blind allegiance to their new commander. And whether it’s top nuke commanders being removed for failing to play ball with the global elite, or just silencing potential whistleblowers, top military generals are now speaking out about the ‘mass purge’ within the United States military.

One such general, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, has now gone on record in speaking with news organization WND about the mass culling of high level military officers on behalf of the Obama administration. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady says that the attack on high level military personnel is so great that it has now obliterated the morale of troops at large, but is more importantly centered in terminating any high level individual that will not go along with the plan.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him,” the retired general told WND.

General Brady’s admission comes just after two of the top nuclear commanders in the United States were terminated and suspended amid the high level military intelligence we released surrounding the secret transfer of nuclear weapons from a Texas Airforce base to South Carolina. ......."

Previous posts and excerpts:

"...Another factor not taken into account by the "girls are as good as boys" mentality is that nothing guarantees that any fighting force will always be able to operate in the manner in which they expected the operation to proceed. Sure, we have tanks, armored personnel; carriers, etc, but what happens of an enemy force of substantial size is able to approach one's position and attack at close quarters? When something like this occurs, being able to shoot a weapon like it is done at a rifle range or other training conditions is only a small part of what is now needed. The enemy must be repelled by vicious and terribly violent actions that are both physically and mentally exhausting. Not only must one be able to shoot, move and communicate while carrying his rifle, he may also have to pick up a machine gun, move it to another position, set it up, and have it delivering fire in a matter of seconds. We cannot ignore the possibility that the battle will turn into a matter of who can kill whom when ammunition is not longer available. At that point, swinging rifles and the utilization bayonets, knives, entrenching tools, and axes/tomahawks are what will make the difference.

Men are also much less likely to falter on a psychological level in combat. No one claims that men never suffer form Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The difference is that a man's mind is programmed to override the otherwise overwhelming fear during a high-stress situation. It is far more likely that a man, when faced with the powerful fear of being killed, will immediately be able to turn the switch and convert that fear into either a resolve to kill as many of the enemy as possible or to descend into an outright rage. A related factor is that that men are much more likely to so fear the loss of respect from their peers that would result from allowing fear to impair the ability to "keep up" in a fight that one, who would otherwise run away, will stand and fight with a fury to avoid having to be ashamed when faced with his teammates after a battle.

Even the normally mundane task of staffing a guard post at a checkpoint can turn into a maelstrom of hectic and savage violence in a second. That checkpoint is in place for a reason; it is needed both to prevent the entrance of an enemy and to serve as an observation post from with communications can be made so that reaction forces can be deployed in the event of an attack. If we allow women in combat roles, then we must allow that there will come a time when a checkpoint with be staffed entirely or almost entirely by females. In an event such as this, we are not looking at an infantry company in which one or two female soldiers are not going to make an appreciable difference in the fighting strength if the unit. At this point, those who staff the checkpoint are the fighting unit, and there is little between them and the inner perimeter of a military unit. That position must be defended with a ferocity, the nature of which is almost unimaginable. Are to assume that a force comprised of, say, experienced Taliban fighters, will be held off by females for a sufficient amount of time to deploy a reaction force to the threatened area?...."

No comments:

Post a Comment