User Profile: Mr_D


Member Since: September 23, 2010


  • [4] August 19, 2016 at 7:31pm

    Obama is more comfortable negotiating water hazards found on every golf course in the world or negotiating with terrorists than navigating the Louisiana water hazards caused by record floods.

  • [2] August 16, 2016 at 10:05pm

    In 1980, due to economic problems and internal tensions Fidel Castro had problems. So he exported many of his problems (released Cuban prisoners and even some from mental hospitals) and permitted them to “emigrate” with others to the US, sending them to the US during the Mariel Boatlift. He knew many of these “problem” Cuban “refugees” would degrade life in the US and make life for Castro easier. He didn’t care.

    Obama commuted sentences of many “low level” drug criminals some who even possessed firearms, releasing them to roam freely in the US. Plus, he also released more hard-core and hardened terrorists from GITMO. Many of these worst-of-the- worst will eventually return to the battlefield and terrorize innocent citizens here and abroad easily entering through Obama’s porous (open) border(s) policy.

    Castro thought he was was helping his country and hurting the US, who he considered its enemy. What’s Obama’s doing?

    In reply to the contribution Trump and Gitmo: Sheep Dog Ethics

  • [3] August 16, 2016 at 7:59pm

    As an Original Classification Authority Hillary is trained to ORIGINATE classified documents and what is classified and what is not. Her documents contained internal classified markings (other than the headers which can easily be removed for “convenience”).

    Why was no search done for the original classified documents and then a word for word comparison done to see what percentage these originally classified documents matched the “sanitized” documents residing on Clinton’s servers? That alone would clearly show INTENT.

    This reminds me of a song, “Don’t ask me any questions, and I won’t tell you any lies.” That is the new FBI theme song.

  • [10] August 16, 2016 at 7:48pm

    Let’s compare the two CRIMES.

    1. Saucier: later tried to get rid of the photos by destroying a laptop, camera and memory card,

    Clinton: Wiped wipe data (did not just “try”) from numerous electronic devices using sophisticated software that does not permit recovery. (Typical deletion of a file does not wipe the drives rather deletes pointers to the data segments.)

    Essentially equivalent crime, but Clinton succeeded.

    2. he [Saucier] “understood that he was not allowed to.”[ Photograph the photograph the entire propulsion system].

    Clinton: As an Original Classification Authority she is trained to originate classified documents and what is classified and what is not. Her documents contained classified markings (other than the headers which can easily be removed). Why was no search done for the original classified documents and a comparison done to see what percentage these classified documents matched the “sanitized” documents residing on Clinton’s server? That alone would clearly show INTENT.

    Both were trained as to the proper classification methods, so BOTH should be guilty. Only one was an OCA.

    3. Further, he [Saucier] showed them to his ex-wife and at least one other woman he lived with at the time.

    Clinton: By not following security protocols she was trained to do, she “showed” the documents to our enemies around the world.

    Both provided classified information to others. Clinton provided classified to our enemies from around the world.

  • [2] August 6, 2016 at 11:50am

    “But he said that it was “unprecedented for the FBI to show the kind of transparency” it did in discussing its investigation of Clinton and recommendation to prosecutors to forgo criminal charges.”

    Let’s assume Hillary is correct and she did not lie to the FBI. In fact, the FBI director, Comey also said she did not lie. So the obvious question is, “Why didn’t the FBI ask questions designed to uncover Hillary’s deception and lying?”

    The voters’ response to that question will define the next election. It has clearly affected support for Trump and led to an increasingly negative view of the Obama justice department including the FBI itself, a critical part United State’s Justice for EVERY citizen…of all persuasions.

  • [5] August 3, 2016 at 11:51am

    Payoffs can be disguised; Just like this one was. Why use hard cash? Honest people use digital transfers, ACH, etc. It’s “safer”. Only dishonest people, drug dealers and terrorists, want to go the cash method of payments.

    Just look at what the big corporations and foreign governments “paid” to Hillary for her 20 minute speeches… hundreds of thousands of dollars. More than ten years of a low income person’s yearly income is typical for a Hillary payoff.

  • [5] August 3, 2016 at 9:54am

    Reports say we paid to release the traitor, Bergdahl too.

  • [5] August 3, 2016 at 9:52am

    Reports say we paid Iran $400M (equivalent) to grease the release of four hostages. That was in conjunction with the underhanded deal permitting Iran to quickly gain a military nuclear weapons capability. Since Iran is a terrorist nation. What happened to… America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists?

    Ransom only encourages more hostage taking, not less. Paying $400 million for four hostages places a $100M price tag on Americans’ heads. Funding terrorists using hostage money only makes ……terrorists great again. Funding terrorists provides aid and comfort to the enemy, and that’s one element of TREASON.

    A great and strong America never paid ransom to anyone. We used our “national assets” to rescue them (like Israel does). Tiny Israel is much more powerful and stronger than the US is now under the Obama/Hillary administration.

    Trump will make America great again; Obama and Hillary only make terrorist organizations great again.

    Responses (3) +
  • [10] July 6, 2016 at 10:28am

    Clinton should have been charged. As an ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY, she was trained to properly handle and ORIGINATE classified information. Unlike lower-level employees having access to classified, she does not need to use security classification guides or rely on information contained in another documents; She’s an ORIGINATOR. Thus, she was clearly negligent in handling United States and especially foreign high level security information and should have been prosecuted. Foreign governments can’t trust the USA if Hillary is in office.

    Reports also say that some information would have disclosed “sources and methods”. Thus, she likely compromised people and technical methods. No “commoner” person committing these acts would EVER be able to retain or obtain any security clearances. So if she cannot retain or obtain a security clearance, she is by definition unfit for any office requiring security CLEARANCES.

  • [6] June 10, 2016 at 1:02pm

    If it looks like a duck…..its a duck.
    “Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico)
    A federal law, passed in 1970, that allows prosecution and civil penalties for certain acts (including illegal gambling, bribery, kidnapping, murder, and money laundering) performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. RICO has been used to prosecute members of the mafia, the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, and Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, among others. ” (
    ……………and just maybe Hillary?

    150 FBI agents for an email server??

  • [1] February 18, 2016 at 6:41pm

    As a person with prior access, I find Sen Rubio’s obvious acknowledgment of Sen Cruz’s disclosure of “possible” classified information in the earlier debate 4 inexcusable. I find it hard to believe it isn’t more widely reported.

    Even if what Sen Cruz spoke of was NOT classified, Sen Rubio highlighted it (as if he thought it WAS) and, thus, make it worse. Regulations demand that disclosed and publicized classified data NOT be acknowledged. Rubio did so in a fit of anger.

    Rubio rightly says that Hillary isn’t qualified to be commander in chief after her email disclosures, and in the same manner, Rubio would also be disqualified.

  • [1] February 16, 2016 at 8:31am

    The future President will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    If TRUMP actually believes that CRUZ is unqualified, this oath requires he defend it. Why should he wait until/ or if he is elected? I believe, he is obligated to take any legal means possible, including filing suit.

    TRUMP should not use this birther issue as a threat to force a personal apology from CRUZ. Rather he should show he will support a Presidential oath and file suit now to defend the republic.

  • [2] January 8, 2016 at 7:53am

    She did a great job. Unilaterally disarming is just what Obama is doing on the nuclear side, too.

    A few comments on the show.

    Obama doesn’t care about victims. He doesn’t know their names. He even called Gabby Giffords, Gabby Gifford during the CNN town hall.

    To make school children and the staff more secure, permit weapons on campus. Permit concealed carry holders to carry on campus. Hire armed undercover security officers. Pres Obama’s children are accompanied by an armed secret service detail having both semiautomatic and probably fully automatic weapons (submachine guns). Why are the President’s children more valuable than the children of everyday Americans?

    Since the 2nd Amendment is at the Federal level, why are all Federal buildings gun free zones? American’s rights are certainly being infringed at the Federal level even though the Amendment is at the Federal level.

  • January 4, 2016 at 1:10pm

    Analogous to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, Hillery personally incited a terrorist organization to produce a propaganda recruitment video using Donald Trump. “What difference does it make?” I guess it IS all about the video. She should ask Al Shabab for consulting fees.

    Since she has personally aided the enemy, how can she ever become the Commander in Chief of the US military?

  • December 15, 2015 at 7:54am

    The alleged, “most transparent administration” is again becoming discolored. The dark shades of Benghazi are coming to light. The Dept of State and DHS are in charge.

    Administration officials, including the FBI, took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They cannot defend the Constitution and not fully defend “We The People..” US citizens must take priority over these Afghan soldiers who conspired to leave their duty and THEIR country behind.

    Prioritizing Afghan soldiers who violated their agreements by concealing their identities that would permit capture is inexcusable. How can we “say something if we see something” when government officials won’t give the citizens the information to do so.

    They trust Afghan soldiers who have demonstrated they cannot be trusted more than than US citizens. I expected the Dept of State to do this but I expected more from the FBI Director Comey after seeing him on 60 Minutes.

  • [1] December 11, 2015 at 7:30am

    There IS an attempt to divert attention away from failed leadership……. Bergdahl’s.

    Army Regulation 600-100, describes leadership and Army values. This regulation focuses on leaders at all levels and in all cohorts: officers, warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, Soldiers [i.e Bergdahl], and
    DA civilians.

    “Leaders must be competent, full spectrum warfighters, and professionals who understand the strategic implications of their actions, behaviors, and decisions on Army, Department of Defense (DOD), and national objectives. They must understand that failure to act can impede operational progress by delaying development and delivery of required resources, through increased anti-American sentiment and enemy resistance, and by strengthening the appeal of ideas propagated by U.S. adversaries. (1-4f)

    Bergdahl “successfully failed” to comply with every single one: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.

    He must be court martialed. If the Army accepts an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment. It’s a further slap in the face to all active duty and vets.

  • [3] November 20, 2015 at 5:27pm

    The left is beating up Trump about a comment he did not make about making a database to track Syrian (and other foreign) refugees (of which some MUST be terrorist sleeper). These same “Americans” have no problem supporting a US gun database of law-abiding and previously background checked United States citizens and gun owners and, thus, tracking Americans.

    Statistics confirm, background checked gun owners commit much less crime than non-gun owners.

  • [1] October 13, 2015 at 4:55pm

    “Unplanned Parenthood” has not gone far enough.

    To remove all conflicts of interest (and perceptions), the use of any “cells, waste, medical byproducts, bio-waste, etc…) for any use, even “research” should be illegal. Only then, will all conflicts of interest be eliminated.

    Abortions can still be performed, but there will no longer be any incentives (even if not paid) that may encouraging abortions. We can conduct medical research without becoming like the Germans of WWII.

  • October 11, 2015 at 8:46am

    Ford pardoned, the “…I am not a crook…” Nixon. Carter pardoned thousands of Vietnam draft dodgers.

  • [4] October 10, 2015 at 6:18pm

    Carter, a democrat, pardoned all the Vietnam draft dodgers who fled their duty so others could die in Nam. Their selfish actions got rewarded.

    Now Obama, also a democrat, as Commander in Chief, steered the military to go easy on a person who did not meet his commitment to defend the constitution of the United States. Berg.. was a voluntary POW by leaving the safety of his compound. He’ll get POW benefits for life (and even a license plate) that are awarded to those honorable soldiers like Jessica Lynch who was captured against her will. Voluntary POWs should get NOTHING from the taxpayers. Just like during Vietnam, Berg..’s selfish actions are being rewarded. Vote Democrat??

    What does this say to others in the military who took the same oath??

    Responses (3) +