Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Obama: African Americans needn't feign authenticity; Michelle can talk properly if need be

Speaking at a town hall event at the Walker Jones Education Campus in Washington D.C. on Monday to promote his "My Brother's Keeper" initiative, President Obama told the crowd that African Americans do not need "to act a certain way to be authentic."

"The notion that there's some authentic way of being black, that if you're going to be black you have to act a certain way and wear a certain kind of clothes, that has to go," Obama said. "Because there are a whole bunch of different ways for African American men to be authentic."

Oddly, the President went on to offer some rather bizarre and outlandish words of praise to his wife, Michelle, when he told the crowd that the First Lady can talk properly if need be.

"If you look at Michele, she grew up South Side," the President said. "And her mom still lives in a neighborhood where gunshots go off, and it can be rough where Michelle grew up. But she'll talk proper when she needs to."

The President then added in jest: "Now, you also don't want to get on her [Michelle's] wrong side, because she can translate that into a different vernacular."

"But," Mr. Obama went on to say, "my point is, is that you don't have to act a certain way to be authentic. You just have to be who you are."

Ironically, Mr. Obama has been known to talk with a phony southern accent while addressing African American crowds. Nevertheless, on Monday, he seemed to acknowledge that this kind of phony behavior is unnecessary and unhelpful.

"You don't have to act a certain way to be authentic," he said. "You just have to be who you are."

Friday, July 18, 2014

Tennessee, Louisiana Added To the List Of States Getting Double-Digit Obamacare Premium Hikes

From the Daily Caller:
Obamacare customers in Tennessee and Louisiana are now a part of the growing list of Americans who are facing double-digit premium hikes in the wake of the health care law.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tennessee, the largest health insurer in the state, is upping its exchange premiums by an average of 19 percent, according to rate request filings. Humana is requesting an average 14.4 percent increase and Cigna is asking for a 7.5 percent rate increase

Louisiana customers will face even larger hikes. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, the largest insurer in Louisiana as well, has proposed rate hikes between 18.3 percent and 19.7 percent for Obamacare customers...

Humana in Louisiana hopes to hike its rates by 15.7 percent...
According to The Tennesean, BlueCross has the majority of health insurance marketplace members in Tennessee.

The Tennesean quoted Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tennessee spokesman Roy Vaughn as saying that customers who signed up on the Obamacare exchanges were using more health services than had been anticipated, hence the requested premium hikes were necessary, Vaughn said, because they would allow the company to "break even" for its plans on the federal exchange.
"Based on our claims experience through the first half of this year, we're paying out more than we expected," said Vaughn. "In fact, we're in a loss position that will be in the tens of millions of dollars."

That loss is, in part, due to the fact that more patients who signed up for health care on the exchange were sicker than insurance companies had expected. They tended to use more health services than the company predicted they would, too.
Tennessee Senator Bob Corker on Friday issued a statement on the double digit Obamacare hike saying that, "I'm hopeful the Senate might finally be allowed to debate ways to provide relief from the damaging effects of this law... The president's health care bill was sold to Tennesseans and the country as a way to bring down health care costs, yet it has done just the opposite as we continue to see double digit increases in the cost of plans."

Mr. Vaughn said that Blue Cross Blue Shield was raising Obamacare premiums in order to avoid millions of dollars in losses. However, it's safe to assume that we will also witness a significant hike in all other health insurance plans, including private and employer-based health insurance, in order to make up for the losses that the insurance companies are incurring from Obamacare. And, in all likelihood, we've already witnessed this phenomenon......

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Gen. Dunford doesn't share Obama's affinity for telegraphing withdrawal timelines to the Taliban, He also expresses concern about Afghanistan's future in light of Obama's timelines, And he hopes the President doesn't bungle Afghanistan like he did Iraq

President Obama's affinity for withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan when violence in the country is continuously on the rise is well-known. Additionally, the President's affinity for telegraphing to the Taliban the timelines he has set for US troops to withdraw from the country - thereby boosting the enemy's morale while deflating the morale of the Afghan and allied forces - is also well-known.

The President first exhibited his fondness for telegraphing to the Taliban his set timelines for withdrawal in December of 2009, when he announced a troop surge in Afghanistan and noted simultaneously that the troops would begin to withdraw from the country in 18 months.

More recently, the President exhibited his inexplicable affinity for telegraphing the enemy his timelines for troop withdrawals, when he announced that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2017.

However, while Obama may take great pleasure in telegraphing inspirational messages to the Taliban, the current commander of NATO and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Joseph Dunford, does not share the same sentiment.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Gen. Dunford expressed his disapproval with the President's decision to announce the date when US troops will complete their pull out from Afghanistan.

Gen. Dunford, who appeared before the Committee on Thursday for a hearing on his nomination to become the next commandant of the Marine Corps, was asked by Sen. John McCain as follows:

"Is there any doubt in your mind that the announcement of a complete withdrawal by 2017 has had an effect on the morale of the Afghan Army?"

Gen. Dunford responded: "Senator, I think all of us in uniform, to include the Afghans, would have preferred for that to be a bit more ambiguous."

A bit more ambiguous, heh.......

Sen. McCain then went on to note that: "In fact, we were told recently in Kabul by Afghan military officers - they said, 'you are abandoning us'! That's they what told me... And I don't think they would have any reason to tell us otherwise."

According to the Washington Post, Dunford also noted that the President's plan to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 will weaken the United States’ ability to perform counterterrorism missions there.

“In accordance with the plan right now, we would have…a Kabul-centric approach,” Dunford said. “That would reduce our collections capability, our signals intelligence, our human intelligence and our strike capability. So it would be a significant reduction in our overall counterterrorism capability.”

The Post also reported that Dunford, in his testimony, acknowledged that, in 2017, when all U.S. troops exit the country, the Afghan forces, in all likelihood, will not be “capable of conducting the kind of operations we’re conducting” of applying strong pressure on al-0aida and other extremists who pose a security threat to Afghanistan.

“There’s no doubt that the Afghan forces of today are not capable of conducting the operations we’re conducting today … not if you project forward the threat as it exists today,” he said.

Dunford said that he did not see how it would be possible to rely on the Afghan forces to contain al-Qaeda and other extremist groups that reside near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and how it would be possible to depend on the Afghan military to prevent these terrorists from threatening the US homeland.

When asked whether doing so would be a "high-risk strategy", Dunford said that “from a CT [counterterroism] perspective,” the aforementioned Obama strategy would indeed be a high-risk strategy.

Gen. Dunford also expressed his hope that the Obama administration would not make the same mistake in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq and that the Obama administration would conduct "a responsible transition from Afghanistan, as opposed to a withdrawal.”

“In Iraq, we withdrew, with the associated consequences,” Dunford said. “We knew when we left Iraq that there was work remaining to be done to develop sustainable Iraqi security forces, as well as to ensure that political stability existed in Iraq, such that security and stability would continue. In Afghanistan, we’ve got a chance to get that right, and my argument, in fact, is for us to do a responsible transition from Afghanistan, as opposed to a withdrawal.”

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Josh Earnest and Clint Eastwood agree: Barack Obama is the most transparent President ever!

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on Sunday that President Obama is the most transparent President ever! Judging from the speech that Clint Eastwood delivered at the Republican National Convention in 2012, it is clear that Mr. Eastwood concurs with Mr. Earnest's assessment. See the video below.

That's right, Barack Obama is the most transparent, invisible and irrelevant President ever!

Related Post and Video: Obama's Transparency Pledge: Making Americans' Privacy transparent - PRISM electronic surveillance, data mining, media wiretap, eavesdropping etc.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Democrats Desperately Scouring Republican transcripts & statements, hoping to find extreme, fringe language to spook voters

Democratic candidates, lacking their own merits to defeat their Republican opponents, are now scouring every last transcript of their opponents in search of a comment that can be twisted and portrayed as extreme and fringe, in an effort to spook voters into supporting their candidacies, the AP reported on Monday.
As the nation's midsection has grown more conservative and Republican, Democrats have sometimes had to rest their hopes on well-positioned GOP contenders imploding with their own politically off-key statements.

It worked like a charm for Democrats in 2012 when Republican candidates in Indiana and Missouri blew winnable Senate races after provocative comments on rape...

But with less than four months until the 2014 election, Democrats are still waiting for new bombshells and growing more anxious about the lack of incendiary material as they try to hold enough Senate seats to keep control of the chamber. Party researchers are diligently scrubbing every transcript and public comment for a hint of fringe language that might spook moderate or independent voters...

The best Democrats have come up with so far is Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst's avowed belief in a possible threat to American property rights posed by an obscure global development concept known as Agenda 21. Some... see the concept as the harbinger of a United Nations takeover...

The Iowa Democratic Party has been citing [Ernst's remarks on the matter]... in press releases in hopes of building a case that Ernst's views are outside the mainstream...

For Democrats, the search continues for words that suggest fringe views...

"If it sticks they're delighted and if it doesn't they move on to the next thing," North Carolina Republican Wrenn said.
In the same vein, the AP reported in July of 2012 that that the Obama campaign had been running negative ads against Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in order "to deflect attention" from the president's failed policies.

From the AP - July 2012:
There was never any doubt that Obama would run hard-hitting ads.

For one, he's proven to be a cut-throat campaigner, having assailed Sen. John McCain on TV four years ago even as he cultivated an image as someone who always played above-board politics.

Democrats long have said Obama's best hopes for re-election may lie with disqualifying Romney...

The president seemed to acknowledge his campaign's gamble in one of his newest TV ads.

"Sometimes politics can seem very small," Obama says, as he speaks reassuringly into the camera.

Obama advisers say they have little choice but to assail Romney in ads, both to raise questions about the former Massachusetts governor... and to deflect attention from the president's stewardship... The campaign's ad spending has totaled about $100 million so far, most of it on negative ads. Democratic independent groups... have kicked in another $20 million for advertising, almost all of it trashing Romney.

To that end, the Obama campaign has sought to make Romney an unacceptable alternative...
I noted at the time that Obama's "tactic of disqualifying his opponents, goes as far back as 1996, albeit Obama, at the time, was able to accomplish this feat without the negative ads."
While running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama, who had no record to run on, invalidated the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers [because of mere technicalities], which enabled him to run unopposed and to cruise to victory.

Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass, noted about Obama's 1996 tactic: "That was Chicago politics. Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right?... In that first race, [Obama] made sure voters had just one choice."
In October of 2010, ABC News reported:
The Democratic National Committee formally has asked the Pentagon for reams of correspondence between military agencies and nine potential Republican presidential candidates, a clear indication that Democrats are building opposition-research files on specific 2012 contenders even before the midterm elections.

An internal Army e-mail obtained by ABC News indicates that the DNC has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for "any and all records of communication" between Army departments and agencies and each of the nine Republicans -- all of whom are widely mentioned as possible challengers to President Obama. [Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, John Thune, Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal.]

The agencies are asked to respond to the request by this Friday, just four days before Election Day...

The DNC's request is intriguing for its timing as well as for the singling out of nine particular Republicans who are expected to vie for the GOP presidential nomination.

In addition, the FOIA request provides a window into how deeply into potential candidates' pasts opposition researchers are looking, even at this early stage...

According to the memo, the DNC's request asks for "Any and all records of communication (including but not limited to letters, written requests, reports, telephone records, electronic communication, complaints, investigations, violation and memos) between your department (and all divisions and agencies under your jurisdiction)."...
In February of 2009, in a blog post entitled, "'Dirt Digger' Joins Obama's Legal Team", I noted via the Washington Times:
Shauna Daly, a 29-year-old Democratic operative, was named last month to the new job of White House counsel research director. Though she is inside one of the most powerful legal offices in the land, Miss Daly holds no law degree and doesn't list any legal training on her resume.

Her sole experience has been as an opposition researcher for Democratic political campaigns: She helped dig up dirt on rivals, or on her own nominee to prepare for attacks.

Miss Daly has been doing opposition research for Democratic politicians since just after graduation in 2001 from Smith College. ... Before joining the Obama campaign, she was the deputy research director at the Democratic National Committee.
I went on to note:
In 2005, while working as opposition researcher for the DNC, Miss Daily, requested public records from state agencies on at least 11 potential candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, including Mitt Romney, George Allen, Haley Barbour, Sam Brownback, William Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Guiliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and George Pataki.

During Sara Palin's run for governor of Alaska in 2006, Miss Daly requested copies of financial disclosure reports and ordinances for Palin's years as mayor.
Bottom line: If you're running for elected office and you don't have any merits to run on, scour the records and transcripts of your opponent and find something that you can twist and portray as being extreme; run negative ads and try to disqualify your opponent; try and spook the voters - and you might ultimately defeat your opponent.

This strategy has worked for Barack Obama in the past, and it might work for you too.

Good luck, enjoy the spook technique, and Happy Halloween...........

Slain Soldier's Family 'Furious' Bowe Bergdahl has been returned to Active Duty

The family of 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews, who was killed in Afghanistan in September of 2009, say they are "furious" after hearing the news that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released from Taliban captivity in a prisoner swap on May 31, has been returned to active duty while investigators continue to question him about his disappearance in 2009, NBC News reported on Monday.

Many of Bergdahl's comrades have branded Bergdahl a deserter.

Bergdahl walked away from his army unit in 2009 and was subsequently held by the Taliban for five years. He was released on May 31 in exchange for five top Taliban commanders who had been imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba.

Members of Darryn Andrews' platoon told the family that Darryn was searching for Bergdahl when the former was ambushed and killed.

The Defense Dept. said Monday that Bergdahl had been returned to regular Army duty while the investigation into his disappearance continues.

Officials said that Bergdahl has finished receiving therapy and counseling at an Army hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and that he will now assume a job at the Army North headquarters at the same base.

"He will now return to regular duty within the command where he can contribute to the mission," the army said in a statement.

Two soldiers are reportedly being assigned to help Bergdahl readjust to Army life.

The announcement of Bergdahl's reassignment to active duty infuriated the family of the late Darryn Andrews.

"This is another attempt to give credibility to a deserter to protect the decision to free five extremely dangerous Taliban," Sondra Andrews, the mother of 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews, told NBC News.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Infamous MS-13 gang using processing center as recruitment hub, Gang Members among Illegal Immigrants housed at US Shelters

From the Washington Times:
The infamous gang Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, is reportedly taking advantage of the immigration crisis along the U.S. border.

“They’re now using the Nogales processing center as a recruitment hub for new members to come in,” Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich reported Friday. “They’re trying to recruit other teenage boys that are sharing cells with them and they’re using the phones that the Red Cross has set up. They’re supposed to be using those to call back home or to call family members in the United States. They’re also using those as a way to communicate with gang members already in U.S. cities.”

Miss Pavlich’s information came from a Border Patrol executive summary obtained by Townhall.com, which confirmed that at least 16 unaccompanied illegal minors have been identified as members of MS-13.

A U.S. Border Patrol agent contacted National Review in June about gang members who are allowed into the country, saying “If he’s a confirmed gang member in his own country, why are we letting him in here?...

Miss Pavlich told Fox News that members of the El Salvadorian gang were scheduled for placement somewhere in the United States. She said ,Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy has been to release illegal immigrants with a notice to appear at a future court date.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

UN: Afghan Civilian casualties continued to spike in first half of 2014

According to the latest report released by The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) on Wednesday, there was a 24% increase in the number of Afghan civilians killed and wounded in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period last year, which once again raises the question: How can the President remove US and allied combat troops from the Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and boast that he has implemented a successful exit strategy when violence in the country - over the last several years - has constantly been on the rise?

In the first six months of 2014, UNAMA documented 4,853 civilian casualties, up 24 per cent over the same period in 2013. Included in the casualty toll were 1,564 civilian deaths and 3,289 injuries, up 17 and 28 per cent from the same time period last year, respectively. Child civilian casualties increased by 34 percent from the same period last year; women civilian casualties increased by 24 per cent.

The UN report also noted that, compared with the first six months of 2009, the number of Afghan civilians killed by insurgents doubled in 2014.

The UN report also noted that the closure and transfer, in 2013, of more than 86 bases belonging to the U.S.-led coalition helped facilitate the rise in civilian casualties, because, prior to those closures, the US-led coalition prevented the Taliban from moving into the more populated areas of Afghanistan.

The "perceived lack of control" by Afghan security forces, who took over security duties from the departing US-led coalition, emboldened the insurgents to amass larger attack groups, which resulted in increased civilian casualties, the report noted.

A UN report released in February noted that there was a 14% increase in the number of Afghan civilians who were killed and wounded in 2013 compared to 2012.

A UN official noted on Wednesday: "In 2014, we found that the fight is increasingly taking place in communities, in public places, near playgrounds, near the homes of ordinary Afghans, with death and injury particularly to women and children in a continued disturbing upward spiral."

On Wednesday, 10 Afghan civilians and four NATO soldiers were killed in an attack in eastern Afghanistan when a suicide bomber blew himself up near a NATO patrol.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

The AP reported on Tuesday that four policemen and four civilians were killed in Kandahar when a suicide car bomber detonated his explosives in front of the police headquarters while about a dozen gunmen stormed into the area. An explosives-laden car then blew up near the gates of the nearby governor's compound. At least 10 civilians, including a child, also were wounded.

On Monday, five Afghan police officers and five Afghan civilians were killed in separate Taliban attacks.

That was just a small sampling of some of the recent violence.

Questions: So, how can Obama withdraw US troops from Afghanistan when violence and civilian casualties are constantly on the rise? And, why is Obama so boastful about bringing the Afghan war to a disastrous and irresponsible end?

Answer: Because he is Obama.

And, while that may not appear to be a satisfactory answer, it is, nevertheless. the correct answer in a nutshell...........

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Jill Tahmooressi "outraged" that Obama administration abandoned her son, says "It feels totally inhumane!"

U.S. Marine sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi - who has spent the last 100 days languishing in a Mexican jail after taking a wrong turn and accidentally crossing the Mexican border - is finally getting his day in court on Wednesday, and he has expressed a sense of hopefulness that the presiding judge will release him when he hears his testimony. However, Tahmooressi's attorney cautioned that there is no guarantee that Tahmooressi will be released any time soon.

Tahmooressi's mother, Jill, while noting that her son has expressed a sense of hope that he will soon be released, nevertheless said that "it would be a miracle if he's released on Wednesday."

"I'm praying for a miracle," she said.

One thing is for certain, if and when Andrew Tahmooressi is finally set free, President Obama no doubt will try to take credit for the Marine sergeant's release, when in reality he refused to lift even a finger to help Tahmooressi. For ultimately Obama is an expert at taking credit for other people's achievements, even those achievements - other achievements - that he himself tried to torpedo. But I won't elaborate on that point right now.

Although Jill Tahmooressi is praying for a miracle for her son, she nevertheless published an op-ed on CNN saying that she is "outraged" that the Obama administration has abandoned her son. "It feels totally inhumane," she says.

Excerpted from Jill Tahmooressi's op-ed piece:
This young man [Andrew] who valiantly fought for the freedom of others, willing to die to combat the evil of oppression and violence in two tours in Afghanistan, meritoriously promoted to sergeant on the battlefield in 2012 — and now he is languishing in a Mexican penitentiary and experiencing captivity for the first time, as a result of one wrong turn.

It is simply staggering. He has been incarcerated since April 1, for inadvertently crossing the border.

In Afghanistan, he had his Marine Corps brothers who always had his back. I feel like our executive branch has abandoned him, and it feels totally inhumane.

The White House has not responded to us despite our petition on Whitehouse.gov, which has nearly 130,000 signatures. The White House says it will respond to petitions that get 100,000 signatures in 30 days.

On a trip to Mexico in May, Secretary of State John Kerry “raised the issue” with authorities there.
[He merely "raised the issue." Heh......]

I am outraged. Andrew’s situation should be considered a grave, serious and urgent concern...

Through faith, I will continue choosing not to be crippled by the weight of the dismay, trauma, and disbelief associated with this, and I will be steadfast in my determination to overcome the barriers of this injustice...

I know that through the collective strength of prayer and the unified focus of individual Americans standing together as advocates, there will be victory for Andrew.

More Obama Hypocrisy: Female White House Staffers Got Smaller Raises Than Men

The Washington Post reported last week that the gap in pay between male and female employees in the Obama White House still remains the same in 2014 as it was in 2009, with male employees making 13% more than their female counterparts.
The White House has not narrowed the gap between the average pay of male and female employees since President Obama’s first year in office, according to a Washington Post analysis of new salary data.

The average male White House employee currently earns about $88,600, while the average female White House employee earns about $78,400, according to White House data released Tuesday. That is a gap of 13 percent.

In 2009, male employees made an average of about $82,000, compared to an average of $72,700 earned by female employees — also a 13 percent wage gap.

One of the key reasons is that more men hold the higher-paying, senior jobs in the White House, and more women hold the lower-paying, junior jobs...

Obama has made pay equity a central cause this year, and he is advocating passage of legislation that would give women more opportunities to learn whether they are being paid a wage in line with their male peers. “This is not a women’s issue, this is a family issue,” Obama said last month in Pittsburgh.
But sadly, female employees in the Obama White House do not need new legislation to learn whether they are being paid a wage in line with their male peers; they are clearly making significantly less.

White House officials, though, noted to the Post in lame fashion that six women in the White House have received high profile promotions in the past year.

But unfortunately, Business Insider pointed out today that, "the women who were promoted at the White House received smaller raises than men."
Salary data released last week revealed average male staffers at the White House earn about 13% more than their female counterparts. The White House responded by pointing out six female staffers received high profile promotions in the past year. However, according to data collected by the conservative consulting firm Target Point, the women who were promoted at the White House received smaller raises than men.

While the average man promoted at the White House received a 24.4% raise, Target Point found the average raise for a promoted woman was 18.5%. Target Point also found 46 men were promoted at the White House between 2013 and 2014 compared to 41 women. Additionally, the firm noted 88 women left White House jobs in the past year while only 77 men departed.

Target Point Senior Vice President and Chief Data Scientist Alex Lundry said this data shows "the White House's hypocrisy on this issue is stunning" as President Barack Obama has made equal pay for women a major part of his agenda this year.

"The data clearly reveal that its not just salary for which there are significant differences between men and women, but also raises, promotions, and turnover," said Lundry. "Empirically, this White House does not treat their male and female employees the same."

On July 2, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest addressed the fact there is a pay disparity between male and female staffers at the same time the president is attempting to address this same issue nationally.

"I wouldn’t hold up the White House as the perfect example here," Earnest said at his daily briefing...

Earnest did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider Tuesday about the statistics on staffer raises.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Hillary Clinton Distances herself from Obama ahead of 2016 Presidential Election

Hillary Clinton's tenure as a member of the Obama administration was a complete and absolute disaster, the epitome of incompetence and convoluted ideology - just like Obama's 5½ years in office. Nevertheless, Hillary is still planning on running for the Presidency in 2016. Hence, she has no choice but to cunningly distance herself from Obama and his disastrous Presidency in the hope that the US electorate will lose sight of her own dreadful policies, twisted ideologies and complete ineptness.

From the Wall Street Journal:
Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery.

People are "really, really nervous" about their future, Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Colorado last week that included hints of her emerging strategy to convey that she would be more effective in the pursuit of Democratic policy goals than Mr. Obama has been during his time in office.

"They don't think the economy has recovered in a way that has helped them or their families," Mrs. Clinton said...

Mrs. Clinton hasn't repudiated Mr. Obama..., and comments aimed at highlighting her differences with Mr. Obama are often implied rather than stated bluntly.

But in tone and substance, the presumed presidential candidate has made clear in recent public appearances that she wouldn't be running for a de facto third Obama term in the White House. The strategy could help Mrs. Clinton tackle one of her biggest challenges if she decides to run: how to separate herself from Mr. Obama without alienating Democrats and Obama supporters.

The balancing act likely would be even trickier for Vice President Joe Biden, another potential Democratic candidate in 2016. Mr. Biden, closely tied to the White House and its foreign and domestic policies, could find it enormously difficult to chart an independent path if he launches a campaign...

Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief speech writer for Pete Wilson when the Republican was California's governor, suggested that Mrs. Clinton's distancing strategy at least partly reflects Mr. Obama's lackluster popularity.

"If the president had 60% approval ratings, she would be hitching her wagon to him," Mr. Whalen said. "At 40%, he's an anchor." Still, given the delicate spot Mrs. Clinton is in, "to the extent that she throws him under the bus, she has to run over him at a very slow speed."...

Mrs. Clinton expressed skepticism of candidates with "beautiful vision" at a CNN event last month, while Mr. Obama still hammers on his 2008 campaign mantra: "Hope."

"I mean, some people can paint a beautiful vision," Hillary said at the CNN event last month. "And, thankfully, we can all learn from that. But then, can you, with the tenacity, the persistence, the getting-knocked down/getting-back-up resilience, can you lead us there?"...

As she mulls a presidential bid, Mrs. Clinton also has suggested that her husband's administration offers a more viable model for governing in polarized times than Mr. Obama's.

Partisanship in the 1990s was as grave as it is today, she suggested at the Colorado event. Nevertheless, Mr. Clinton made inroads with... Republican lawmakers, Mrs. Clinton said...

"Bill never stopped reaching out to them," she said...

Building those relationships on Capitol Hill "is something there is no rest from," she added.
Incidentally, Hillary's comments at last month's CNN event in which she said, "Some people can paint a beautiful vision..., but... can you lead us there?" is reminiscent of the remarks she made during her 2008 Democratic Presidential campaign when she mocked Obama and said the following:

"None of the problems we face will be easily solved... Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together! Let’s get unified! The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!' Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand..."

Nevertheless, Hillary's mocking of Obama aside, she still needs him, and she still needs his support, hence her criticism of Obama has been guarded and restrained, and she has been heedful not to throw him under the bus completely.

And while Obama can not possibly run for a third term in office, he still can not afford to alienate the Clintons and their supporters. Hence, he continues to be even more careful not to offend Hillary.

The Wall Street Journal, in the aforementioned article, noted that when it contacted the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's office for comment, it received the following response:
A senior Obama administration official said the White House is supportive of Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama's team understands there will be moments when Mrs. Clinton and the White House aren't in lock step, the official said. Mrs. Clinton's office didn't respond to a request for comment.

Poll: Obama Worst President since World War II, America would be better off with Romney

Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released on Wednesday which showed that 33% of the poll respondents named him the worst President since World War II, the highest percentage from among the twelve US Presidents who served in office since World War II. None of the other Presidents received 33%.

Additionally, the poll showed that a significant majority of Americans believe the country "would be better off than it is today" if Mitt Romney had won the 2012 presidential election instead of Barack Obama. 45% hold that view, while 38% believe the country would be worse off with Romney in office.

The poll also showed that, on his handling of most key issues, the President has significantly high disapproval ratings.

Among those key issues:

55% of Americans disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy, 40% approve.

57% of Americans disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy, 37% approve.

58% of Americans disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care, 40% approve.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Figurines in Valerie Jarrett's office bow down to her

From The Blaze:
Earlier this week, during NBC’s exclusive peek inside the world of Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, the network’s cameras picked up on a little something that may have gone unnoticed. It has to do with three little figurines placed in her office, right in front of a picture of Jarrett.

Those figurines? They’re all bowing down to her...

A quick Internet search reveals that the figurines are part of a picture frame that’s available for purchase. [The picture frame is called the "Starstruck" picture frame!] How much? According to the site AllModern.com it can be yours for $18.47:

On Tuesday afternoon, Jarrett responded to our story with a little explanation. As we suggested, she said it was a gag gift:
Don’t worry friends, it was a gag gift. Us strong women don’t need worship — just an economy for the 21st century. #WomenSucceed

— Valerie Jarrett (@vj44) July 1, 2014
Jarrett is correct; strong women don't need worship. But whoever gave her the gag gift apparently felt that she has become an all powerful, worshipable and feared adviser to President Messiah [Obama].

And while the gift that Jarrett received might have been a gag, the gift that the American people received when Obama, Jarrett and their left-wing colleagues took over the White House is certainly not a gag! Quite the contrary, it's a serious and extremely sad gift that has the American people gagging for breath 24/7... Pun intended.......

Monday, June 30, 2014

Russian arms, anti-aircraft likely used against Ukrainian aircraft, says US General

From the AFP:
Pro-Russian separatists likely used weapons supplied by Moscow to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft in recent weeks, NATO's top commander General Philip Breedlove said Monday.

Russia was maintaining a large troop presence near Ukraine's border and had provided anti-aircraft weapons and other hardware to the rebels, Breedlove told a Pentagon news conference.

"What we see in training on the east side of the (Ukrainian) border, is big equipment, APCs (armored personnel carriers), anti-aircraft capability . . .and now we see those capabilities being used on the west side of the border," the general said.

A Ukrainian military cargo plane was shot down on June 14, killing 49 people on board, and a Ukrainian helicopter was downed last week, leaving nine troops dead.

Breedlove said the Russian military had more than seven battalion-sized task groups and "numerous" special operations forces deployed near the border.

"That's not a helpful development," he said...

Breedlove, the supreme allied commander of NATO, said the crisis illustrated the need to avoid any further cuts to US forces in Europe.

"As far as force structure, I don't think we can take any more reductions," he said.
Gen. Breedlove was discussing the "program reductions that" the Obama administration had planned for Europe.

"We should now pause and determine, should we continue with any of the program reductions that are in the plan for Europe?..." Breedlove said. "As far as force structure, I do not think we can take any more reductions."

Obamas' deafening silence: Kidnapped Israeli, American boys found dead

The bodies of three Israeli teenagers, who were kidnapped by Hamas operatives over two weeks ago, were discovered in the West Bank on Monday. Sadly, despite the fact that one of the teenagers held dual Israeli-American citizenship, President Obama never issued a public statement on the matter until today, after the boys were found dead. Nor did he demand their safe return.

Likewise, Michelle Obama, who used her twitter account in May to plead on behalf of a group of kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls, remained silent after the teenage boys - one with dual Israeli/American citizenship - were abducted.

Apparently, the First Lady felt that speaking out on behalf of the teenage boys was not in her best interest and that it would not give her the same PR boost as her BringBackOurGirls tweets. The President, apparently, felt the same way.

But, as Breitbart noted a couple of weeks ago:
The sad truth is that the United States is [actually] funding the kidnappers of these boys, including an American citizen.

It is currently illegal to fund any organization connected with Hamas. Nonetheless, the Obama administration is doing it after the formation of a unity government between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas; $400 million American taxpayer dollars will go to that entity in violation of law. 18 US Code Section 2339B demands:
Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life...
And although [one of the kidnapped teens] is an American citizen, we apparently do not have a policy of bringing every American citizen home.

Supreme Court: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held, for-profit companies can claim a religious exemption to the Obamacare requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives, NBC News reported.

President Obama has consistently portrayed birth control as a health issue. But the Supreme Court didn't take issue with that twisted portrayal. Rather, the court took issue with a different Obamaism, namely that corporations are not people and thus they can not exempt themselves from providing their employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives.
The Obama administration argued that the freedom of religion applies only to the company owners individually, not to the for-profit corporations they run. It's the corporations, not the family members themselves, who are required to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives under Obamacare, the government said...
The court, in a 5-4 ruling, apparently rejected that sophistry.

CNN noted that the court's decision will have no real effect on contraceptive coverage because ultimately, by hook or by crook, birth control will be subsidized by American taxpayer dollars:
The practical result will likely be an administrative fix by the Obama administration that subsidizes the contraceptives at issue, said CNN political analyst Gloria Borger.

"So in terms of a real gap in medical coverage for these women, should they want it, I think what you are going to see is the government sort of picking up where Hobby Lobby would leave off," Borger said.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest signaled as much, telling reporters the Obama administration will work with Congress to ensure women affected by the ruling will continue to have coverage for contraceptives.
The AP reported that:
Supreme Court Judge Samul Alito suggested two ways the administration could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations.

Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, creating a buffer, their insurer or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. The employer does not have to arrange the coverage or pay for it.

Insurers get reimbursed by the government through credits against fees owed under other provisions of the health care law.
So, ultimately birth control will be covered via the government or via some form of government subsidized medical insurance, and women need not worry about catching the dreadful pregnancy disease, a dangerous, but preventable illness.......

Friday, June 27, 2014

Mexico says Tahmooressi's honest mistake unacceptable, but Mexico's 300 dishonest mistakes acceptable?

Mexican authorities arrested U.S. Marine sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi three months ago after he mistakenly took a wrong turn and crossed the Mexican border. However, with President Obama unwilling to make the minimal effort necessary to obtain Tahmooressi's release, the hapless US Marine sergeant is still languishing in a Mexican jail.

It was an honest mistake on Tahmooressi's part, but apparently the Mexican authorities believe that only they are entitled to make honest mistakes, even nearly fatal honest mistakes, despite the fact that, over the last decade, Mexican authorities have made at least 300 of these dubiously "honest mistakes":

From the LA Times:
Mexican law enforcement helicopter crossed over into U.S. airspace [on Thursday] and fired two shots near U.S. Border Patrol agents, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.

The incident prompted a quick apology from Mexican authorities in what is the second incursion this year of Mexican forces into U.S. territory, officials said.

The incident occurred about 5 a.m. Thursday in southern Arizona about 100 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said, while Mexican authorities were tracking and trying to apprehend about 45 people in a drug operation as the suspects were attempting to cross into the United States.

No one was injured after the shots were fired near the town of San Miguel, Ariz., the officials said.

According to a statement by U.S. officials, Mexican authorities quickly apologized and said the shots were a “mistake.”

In January, two heavily armed Mexican soldiers crossed into Arizona near the same spot and drew their weapons on U.S. Border Patrol officers there. No one was injured in that incident.
And while Mexican authorities claim that the incident on Thursday was an honest mistake, Newsmax reported on Friday as follows:
This is not the first time members of Mexican law enforcement crossed the U.S. border without permission.

In a written response to a request from Rep. Duncan Hunter, the Department of Homeland Security stated that there have been a total of 300 documented incursions by Mexican military and law enforcement authorities since Jan. 1, 2004. Of those incidents, 152 involved armed subjects.

Hunter, a California Republican, believes the number misrepresents the actual number of incursions and criticized the DHS for "a clear lack of consistency among DHS in handling these incidents, especially in cases of unauthorized incursions with armed authorities."
300 documented incursions by Mexican military and law enforcement authorities can not possibly be honest mistakes!

Rep. Hunter - who has been working tirelessly to obtain Andrew Tahmooressi's release - was quoted by Fox News on Friday as saying:

"It's ironic that Mexico says it acted accidentally in this case, and they ask we accept an apology, when they refuse to acknowledge an authentic mistake on Andrew's part."

"There are mistakes and there are excuses," Hunter added. "Andrew's actions were the result of a wrong turn, a simple mistake. Mexico is just making an excuse and no different than the border incursions that are too regular, U.S. officials should approach this incident with absolute seriousness."

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

US Economy Shrank 2.9% in first quarter, worst drop since '09

The U.S. economy shrank at a steep annual rate of 2.9 percent in the first quarter of 2014, the fastest rate of decline since the first quarter of 2009, the US Commerce Department said on Wednesday.

The agency initially reported in April that the economy had expanded at a 0.1 percent rate in the first quarter of this year. The Commerce Department later revised that estimate in June and said that the economy actually shrank by 1 percent. But today the agency revised that number a second time and said that the US economy had actually taken a 2.9 percent nosedive.

The difference between the agency's second and third revision was the largest on records since 1976.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Obama could swap some more Gitmo detainees for the Nigerian hostages

President Obama, last month, cunningly advanced his goal of emptying out the Guantanamo Bay detention center by using the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban custody as a pretext to release five senior Taliban Gitmo detainees as part of a prisoner swap. Likewise, the President has another opportunity and pretext right now to free some additional Gitmo detainees by offering them up in exchange for some of the hostages who've been kidnapped in Nigeria by the Boko Harem terrorist group.

Breitbart reported on Tuesday that Boko Harem has once again gone on a kidnapping spree:
Militant Islamist group Boko Haram abducted 91 individuals during raids into several Nigerian villages over the weekend. Witnesses told the AP that married women were taken along with their children, who range anywhere from three to fifteen years of age...

A local official said on condition of anonymity, "More than 60 women were hijacked and forcefully taken away by the terrorists.”... Others said as many as 30 were killed in the mass abduction...

On April 15, members of the radical Islamist group abducted over 200 Nigerian schoolgirls at their boarding school in Chibok.
Clearly, these kidnappings provide the President with a new pretext, and another golden opportunity, to free some additional Gitmo detainees in exchange for the Nigerian hostages. And, while it may be true that Boko Harem, in all likelihood, has little interest in the Taliban detainees, nevertheless, even the most remote effort to facilitate both the closing down of Gitmo and the release of all Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees is worthwhile. It's worth the effort!

Bottom line: While it is true that U.S Navy admiral and commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, William McRaven, believes there is a strong need for a long-term detention & interrogation facility, like Gitmo, the President must nevertheless seek out all avenues - even the most remote and unlikely avenues - to empty out, and close down Gitmo, for good.

I repeat once again on behalf of the President: By hook or by crook, all Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees must be released from Gitmo as soon as possible!

Also, it is imperative that Michelle Obama stay persistent in her #BringBackOurGirls twitter campaign; for ultimately only a successful twitter campaign has the power to defeat the terrorists!

A couple of twitter posts and instagrams from Michelle Obama and her political PR advisers is certainly not enough! Michelle definitely needs to put a lot more heart into this thing. And, if she needs more money to purchase additional placards for her instagram tweets, there are plenty of people who would be willing to chip in for the expenses......

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Boehner: Wheels are coming off the Obama Presidency - Video Parody

During his weekly press briefing on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner sharply criticized President Obama on a number of issues, including the administration's proposed energy tax, the missing IRS emails, the VA debacle, the dramatic increase in the number of unaccompanied minors that are crossing the US' borders, the terrorist surge in Iraq and the recent prisoner exchange in which five senior Taliban commanders were released from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Mr. Boehner started out by saying, "The American people are still asking the question, ‘where are the jobs?,’ while the administration’s working on their national energy tax that’s going to destroy American jobs."

Addressing the latest revelations concerning the IRS' targeting of conservative groups, the House Speaker said that, "The White House promised to cooperate" in the IRS investigation, "but did nothing."

Mr. Boehner added that the President called the IRS scandal a phony scandal, "yet who could possibly believe" that the White House "lost two critical year’s worth of email" that is critical to the IRS investigation.

On the recent Taliban prisoner swap, Mr. Boehner asserted that, "The White House thought the American people were going to cheer when the president released these terrorists. I think [the President's] misreading of the American people is fairly shocking."

Concerning the dire situation in Iraq, the House Speaker said that, “The White House has known for months about the situation in Iraq. When you look, it’s not just Iraq, the spread of [global] terrorism has increased exponentially under this president’s leadership.”

As I noted in the previous post, in the five years that Barack Obama has been President, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased by more than 150%!

“And," Mr. Boehner concluded, "as you may recall, after the last election, I said that I hoped that the president would seize this moment and take the lead. And here we are, a year and a half later, you look at this presidency and you can’t help but get the sense that the wheels are coming off.”

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Islamic State in Iraq, Ukraine, Rise of Global terrorism, Is this "Change We Can Believe In?"

The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant [ISIL] is currently making significant inroads in Iraq as a result of President Obama's stubborn refusal, in 2011, to leave behind a residual force of US troops in the country. In Ukraine, the situation is also steadily deteriorating. And all across the globe, terrorism is on the rise.

The number of terrorist attacks around the globe has rapidly increased in just five years, according to the IHS Jane's 2013 Global Terrorism & Insurgency Attack Index. "In 2009, a worldwide total of 7,217 attacks were recorded from open sources. In 2013, that number increased by more than 150% to 18,524." There was a 40% increase in terrorist attacks worldwide last year compared to 2012. Which begs the question: Is this the kind of "Change" that Barack Obama promised to bring about during his 2008 Presidential campaign? Is this "Change we can believe in?"

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Abu Khattala and the cowardliness of Obama; What took so long?

Abu Khattala, a senior member of the Benghazi branch of the terror group Ansar al-Sharia, and one of the terrorists who participated in the deadly attacks in Benghazi in 2012, was apprehended by U.S. forces on Sunday, nearly two years after the attacks.

Mr. Khattala's involvement in the Benghazi attacks had become public knowledge shortly after the attacks.

The New York Times reported in October of 2012 as follows:
Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Shariah, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, last month, Libyans involved in the investigation said Wednesday. Witnesses at the scene of the attack on the American Mission in Benghazi have said they saw Mr. Abu Khattala leading the assault.
And yet, despite the public knowledge of Mr. Khattala's involvement in the Benghazi attacks, for nearly two years after the attacks, Mr. Khattala roamed the streets of Benghazi freely and conducted interviews with the New York Times, Reuters, CNN and other news outlets without fear of retribution from the Libyan government or the Obama administration.

In October of 2012, the New York Times interviewed Mr. Khattala, and reported as follows:
Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping [mango juice] on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.
The Times later issued the following correction:
An earlier version of this article misidentified the beverage that Ahmed Abu Khattala was drinking at the hotel. It was a strawberry frappe, not mango juice, which is what he had ordered.

That same month, Reuters also interviewed Mr. Khattala, and reported:
Abu Khattala told Reuters he... was surprised that officials had told journalists he was at large.

"These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding," he said. "But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. I'm even going to pick up my sister's kids from school soon."

Sitting with a friend in the restaurant of a Benghazi hotel, the 41-year-old, sporting a red felt hat and a full salt-and-pepper beard, laughed gently."
The obvious question arises: If Mr. Khattala was roaming the streets of Benghazi both freely and openly, why did it take so long for the Obama administration to apprehend him? According to CNN, US officials claim that Khattala "went into hiding last year after a flurry of media interviews that seemed to mock any U.S. manhunt for him." However, that excuse rings hollow because as late as October 29, 2013, The Times of London interviewed Mr. Khattala, which means the Obama administration had, at the very least, 13 months to apprehend him.

So why didn't the Obama administration nab him?

The answer in a few short words: Obama is a coward who knows only one thing: Appeasement.

The more detailed answer, however, is as follows:

In the October 2013 Times of London interview with Mr. Khattala, The Times reported as follows:
Libya's most wanted man is 1.88m tall, has a grey beard, wears a long brown sheepskin abaya coat, has a thin scar on the left-hand side of his temple. He appears to have the flu.

Given his status as a fugitive and the gravity of his alleged crime - involvement in the killing of the US ambassador - it might be expected Ahmed Abu Khattala would go to ground in a safe house.

Yet, as Abu Khattala, 42, pours a cup of green tea and offers me a tray of biscuits, he gazes thoughtfully from the sofa in his home in a street barely 10 minutes' drive from the centre of Benghazi...

Despite his "wanted" status, the manner of our meeting could scarcely be more blatant... There is no go-between, no guide waiting at a midway rendezvous to escort me to a clandestine meeting place.

Instead, Abu Khattala steps from his home on to the street in broad daylight and leads me inside his house...

"The Lord knows what would happen in Libya if I was taken away," he muses. "This act would win the Americans more enemies, and they would fall."...

Wanis Bukhamada, the head of Libya's special forces appointed as chief of security in Benghazi a fortnight ago, confirmed Abu Khattala's claim the two men regularly talk, an admission that articulates the rift between Washington and Tripoli. "I often meet with Abu Khattala," he said. "We call each other. We have no problems with one another. There is nothing issued against him by the state, no warrant, no information concerning a crime, so why should he be my enemy?"

Instead, Mr Bukhamada expressed concern at the prospect of a US raid to snatch Abu Khattala... A "US raid would cause things to go out of control," he added. "There would be a lot of retaliation. You couldn't tell what might happen."
And therein lies the answer: President Obama's reluctance to arrest Abu Khattala was due to the fact that he feared, in typical cowardly fashion, that such a move would upset both the terrorist groups operating inside Libya and the terrorist-infested Libyan government that Obama helped put in place.

The New York Times repored on Monday:
Officials briefed on the investigation have said for more than a year that a plan to capture Abu Khattala was on Obama’s desk awaiting approval. But the administration held back, in part for fear that a U.S. raid to retrieve him might further destabilize the already tenuous Libyan government.
In October of 2013, I noted that U.S. officials [Obama administration cronies] told CNN that, "the White House became worried any raid in Benghazi [to apprehend Mr. Khattala] could destabilize, and potentially bring down the fragile Libyan government."

Hence, for nearly two years after the Benghazi attacks, Mr. Khattala and his Ansar al-Sharia buddies roamed the streets of Benghazi freely. Why? Because Obama feared that the chaotic situation that he helped create in Libya would only get worse if he dared to apprehend the bad guys.

Which begs the following questions: Why did Obama finally decide to arrest Mr. Khattala? And, from where did Obama get the courage to apprehend him?

Answer: In recent weeks, a renegade and retired Libyan general by the name of Khalifa Haftar has declared war against Ansar al-Sharia and the February 17 Martyrs Brigades - the group that was tasked with guarding the US consulate in Benghazi, but ultimately colluded in the deadly attacks - and other militant groups in Benghazi. Mr. Haftar and several volunteer army units are waging a fierce offensive against the militant groups, and they are acting in defiance, and without the authorization, of the Libyan [terrorist-infested] government.

Hence, with Mr. Haftar and his allies already waging a steady, and heavy, barrage of attacks against Ansar al-Sharia, President Obama, who loves to lead from behind, was able to muster up the courage to defy Ansar al-Sahria, and to arrest Mr. Khattala. Moreover, with the country currently engulfed in fierce fighting, and with Mr. Haftar and his allies already openly defying the Libyan government, the prospect that Mr. Khattala's capture might destabilize an already destabilized country, and weaken, and cripple, an already weakened and crippled government, was no longer a factor.

Hence, Obama suddenly summoned the courage to apprehend Mr. Khattala.

And, it is quite possible that, under the current turbulent circumstances, Obama might also muster up the courage to apprehend some of the other terrorists who were involved in the Benghazi attacks.

Mr. Khattala, no doubt, must be unhappy with Mr. Haftar's recent offensives, which ultimately facilitated the apprehension of Mr. Khattala. On the flip side, however, during the two-year period following the Benghazi attacks, Mr. Khattala was able to roam the streets of Benghazi freely, without fear of retribution - and for that, he owes a huge debt of gratitude to President Obama - because I can't think of any other US President that would have allowed Mr. Khattala the same kind of freedom.

Poll: Overwhelming majority of Americans dissatisfied with Obama administration's handling of Benghazi attack; believe the administration has been dishonest about Benghazi; oppose the President's efforts to close down Guantanamo Bay prison

In a new CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday, poll respondents were asked the following question:

"As you may know, in 2012, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in a town in Libya named Benghazi and killed the U.S. ambassador to that country and three other U.S. citizens. Based on what you have read or heard, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled this matter?"

60% of the respondents said they were dissatisfied, while only 37% said they were satisfied. 4% had no opinion.

The poll respondents were also asked the following question: "When it comes to providing information about the Benghazi attack, do you think the Obama administration has generally been honest or dishonest?"

61% of the respondents said the administration has been dishonest when it comes to providing information about the Benghazi attack, while only 37% said the administration has been honest . 2% had no opinion.

H/T to Guy Benson who also points out that, in a Gallup poll that was conducted between Jan. 5-8, an overwhelming majority of the respondents expressed opposition to President Obama's efforts to close down the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The poll respondents were asked the following question:

"As you may know, since 2001, the United States has held people from other countries who are suspected of being terrorists in a prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Do you think the United States should - or should not - close this prison and move some of the prisoners to US prisons?"

66% of the respondents opposed the President's plan and said that, no, the United States should not close the prison and move some of the prisoners to US prisons, while only 29% supported the President's plan and answered the poll question in the affirmative. 5% had no opinion.

Bear in mind that the aforementioned polls, which reflect negatively on Obama, were conducted by CNN and Gallup, two organizations that lean heavily to the left..........

Monday, June 16, 2014

Kerry: US 'open' to working with Iran over Iraq, despite thousands of US troops who were killed in Iraq by Iranian-backed insurgents

Despite the role that Iran played in prolonging the US military mission in Iraq, and despite the thousands of US troops who were killed in Iraq by Iranian backed insurgents, Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would not rule out possible military cooperation with Iran to counter the current Sunni insurgency inside Iraq which was created as a result of President Obama's irresponsible and inept policies.

Asked on Monday about possible military cooperation with Iran, Kerry said, "I would not rule out anything... We are open to any constructive process here..." We are "open to discussions" with Tehran, Kerry said.

U.S. and Iranian officials in Vienna reportedly discussed the crisis in Iraq on Monday during separate negotiations about Iran's nuclear program.

The Washington Free Beacon noted on Monday:
As far back as 2007, Iran was accused by U.S. military officials of “training Iraqi insurgents to attack coalition forces in Iraq,” according to reports at the time...

Iran was then caught in June 2008 facilitating the passage of grenade launchers and bomb-making material to Iraqi insurgents.

That same year the Justice Department indicted a cohort of foreign nationals for funneling weapons to Iran. These arms were traced to deadly attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.

In May 2009, a large weapons stockpile was discovered along the Iran-Iraq border. The weapons cache, which included explosives and rocket launchers, was tied a Shiite militia purportedly trained and armed by Iran.

Similar reports of Iran arming Iraqi insurgents and attempting to destabilize the government emerged in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
Nevertheless, when asked on Monday about possible military cooperation with Iran, Sec. Kerry said: "I will not rule out anything..." "We are open to any constructive process here..." We are "open to discussions" with Tehran.

However, later in the day, the White House and Pentagon Press Secretaries insisted that there was no plan to coordinate military activities between the United States and Iran.

But of course, the phrase "coordinate military activities" is a tricky one, for it is possible for the Obama administration to support Iran's military activities without the US and Iranian militaries technically coordinating with one another. Moreover, most Iranian combatants, terrorists and militants are not typically official members of the military, hence coordinating with them would not technically be the same as coordinating with the Iranian military, if you catch my drift...........

Federal Student Loan Debt increased over a half trillion dollars since Obama took office in '09, a 517% increase

From CNS News:
Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the cumulative outstanding balance on federal direct student loans has jumped 517.4 percent.

The balance owed as of the end of May was $739,641,000,000.00. That is an increase of $619,838,000,000.00 from the balance that was owed as of the end of January 2009, when it was $119,803,000,000.00, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Earlier this month, Obama announced new executive actions to allow five million student-loan borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10% of their income...

During President George W. Bush’s time [eight years] in office, the amount of outstanding loans increased from $67,979,000,000.00 in January of 2001 to $119,803,000,000 in January of 2009, an increase of 76.2%. This means that under President Obama - [in the five years plus that Obama has been in office] - the amount of federal direct student loans increased 579% more than under [eight years of] President Bush

Obama administration released al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq

The current chaos in Iraq can be attributed to President Obama's inaction and to his actions.

As I noted last week, President Obama refused to retain a residual force of US troops in Iraq in 2011 when the country was mostly calm and peaceful, after the US military had routed Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed insurgents. The end result of the President's decision, and his inaction, was the emergence of the insurgency that is currently strangling the country.

However, it is President Obama's actions that have actually created the current insurgency in Iraq, as Front Page Magazine aptly notes.

Front Page starts off by elaborating on the point I had made last week:
On October 22nd, 2007, Osama bin Laden admitted in an audio tape, entitled “Message to the people of Iraq,” that al Qaeda was losing the war in Iraq because it had made mistakes and no longer had the allegiance of Sunni insurgents who had switched sides. When Barack Obama became president on January 20, 2009, the war in Iraq was essentially won. The al Qaeda-backed insurgency was reduced to smoldering embers. George W. Bush’s surge had succeeded.
Front Page then goes on to say:
Safely behind bars at the time was Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, an al Qaeda-linked point man who was imprisoned at Camp Bucca in Iraq, after being captured by U.S. forces in 2005. According to a Pentagon assessment at the time, al Baghdadi “would kidnap individuals or entire families, accuse them, pronounce sentence and then publicly execute them.”

However, the Obama administration decided to shut down the Bucca prison camp and hand over its prisoners to the Iraqi government, including Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, in 2009. The Iraqi government later released him. Al Baghadi boasted to the U.S. soldiers who had held him prisoner, “I’ll see you in New York.”

The release of al Baghadi and other jihadist insurgents from the Bucca prison, coupled with President Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 rather than follow the military’s advice to leave a residual force behind, turned the smoldering embers of the once defeated al Qaeda-backed insurgency into a raging out-of-control conflagration.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi has re-emerged to become the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)... ISIS in recent days has taken control of large portions of northern and western Iraq including Iraq’s second largest city Mosul. ISIS freed at least 1,000 militants held in prisons in Mosul, adding more jihadists to its swelling ranks. It has looted hundreds of millions of dollars from northern Iraqi banks and taken sophisticated military equipment left behind by fleeing Iraqi soldiers...
That's right, Obama's actions, namely his decision to hand over al Baghdadi and his fellow prisoners to the Iraqi government - which subsequently freed the thugs - in essence, created the current insurgency in Iraq.

But Obama apparently has a penchant for transferring terrorist detainees to other governments, despite the inherent danger entailed in such handovers. He also has a penchant for freeing terrorist detainees, especially Gitmo detainees.

Earlier this year, the Afghan government released 65 Taliban fighters from a former U.S. prison that had been transferred over by the Obama administration to Afghan control. The release of the fighters came despite the objections of US military personnel who said that the terrorist detainees were "directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel", and that the terrorists would likely return to the battlefield to kill even more NATO and Afghan troops.

And, last month, the Obama administration freed five senior Taliban commanders from Gitmo in exchange for US army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. I noted at the time as follows:
The President has sought all avenues, pretexts and excuses to free all detainees currently held in Gitmo, so that he could fulfill his pledge to close down the facility... President Obama's zeal to shut down Gitmo is well-known. Hence, it is no surprise that the Obama administration... released 5 "high-ranking", senior terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for the release of US marine Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl..

A senior administration official told CNN, "The transfer of these individuals is not a concession -- it is fully in line with the President's goal of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."

The senior administration official - perhaps unwittingly - revealed the truth, namely that the release of the five terrorists from Gitmo was not a concession on Obama's part. Quite the contrary, Obama has desperately sought any pretext to free any and all Gitmo detainees so that he could eventually close down the facility and boast that his campaign pledge to shut down the facility was not an empty promise. Bergdahl's release allowed the President to free 5 more Gitmo detainees and avoid scrutiny. Hence, there was no concession on the President's part; quite the contrary, releasing the five Gitmo detainees, pretext and all, was a wish, and a dream, come true for Obama...

Sadly, many detainees who've been released from Gitmo in the past have rejoined their terrorist comrades and have gone on to kill even more US and NATO troops.

Many Gitmo detainees have been repatriated to other countries where they've been placed either in a prison or a rehab facility for a brief period of time before being released to the wild to inflict more human casualties...
Likewise, the Obama administration handed over Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and his fellow prisoners, to the Iraqis who subsequently released them into the wild, where they are now wreaking destruction upon the entire country.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Boehner: Obama taking a nap while Insurgents take over Iraq and march to Baghdad

"They're 100 miles from Baghdad, and what's the president doing? Taking a nap."
House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday commenting on President Obama's Idleness as al-Qaeda-inspired insurgents continue to take over major cities in Iraq while vowing to march on to the capital, Baghdad.

ABC News reported on Thursday:
As al Qaeda-linked terrorists wreak havoc across Iraq, House Speaker John Boehner unloaded on President Obama for ignoring the escalating crisis there, contending that the president has been “taking a nap” while the situation rapidly deteriorates.

“It's not like we haven't seen over the last five or six months these terrorists moving in, taking control of Western Iraq. Now they've taken control of Mosul. They're 100 miles from Baghdad,” Boehner, R-Ohio, fumed. “And what's the president doing? Taking a nap!”

Earlier this year, on Jan. 9, Boehner publicly urged Obama to “maintain a long-term commitment to a successful outcome” in Iraq, and called on the president to “get engaged.”...

Criticizing President Obama for negotiating an unprecedented prisoner exchange of five ranking Taliban for POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Boehner said the trade “has encouraged” U.S. enemies and increased risk to military and civilian personnel serving around the globe.

“Those who would argue the opposite, I think, are incredibly na├»ve,” Boehner said.

On Thursday, Boehner said the administration’s failure to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq “continues to have serious consequences for Iraq and American interests in the region...”

Boehner cited the administration’s “failed policies” in Syria, Libya and Egypt... “He continues to endanger our troops and citizens with his failed foreign policies,” Boehner said. “We need to elect a Congress that not only has the will to stop the president, but the power to do so, as well.”

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Hagel reassures Congress: Freed Senior Taliban commanders merely directed deadly operations against US, but, like Bin Laden, they did not actually pull the trigger

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel assured lawmakers on Wednesday that the five senior Taliban commanders who were freed from the Guantanamo Bay prison last week in exchange for US military deserter, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, merely directed deadly operations against US forces, but like Osama Bin Laden, they never actually pulled the trigger that killed Americans.

We appreciate that comforting thought, Mr Hagel. Thank you.

From Fox News:
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel [during a House Armed Services Committee hearing] on Wednesday sought to ease concerns about the controversial swap of five hardened Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl...

Hagel... tried to downplay the risk inherent in the exchange, claiming the former Guantanamo detainees were planners, and had not directly participated in attacks on Americans.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., quickly pointed out that Osama bin Laden was also a planner. "Bin Laden didn't pull a trigger...," McKeon said....

[Hagel] said there was "no direct evidence of any direct involvement in their direct attacks on the United States or any of our troops," though they were combatants and "part of planning."

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, asked him to clarify.

"So your point was they didn't pull the trigger, but they were senior commanders of the Taliban military who directed operations against the United States?" he asked.

"That's right," Hagel said.
"That's right." Heh....

It's sad, but comical nonetheless....

Gateway Pundit noted on Tuesday:
In remarks this weekend when asked to defend the release of five top Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay as part of the Bowe Bergdahl deal, Secretary of State John Kerry pushed back on the idea that the Taliban leaders who were released would make any difference to the fight.

“We are ending our combat role. Our combat role in Afghanistan is over.”
Our combat role is over? But what about the 9,000 plus US troops who will remain in the country until 2016? And what about the Afghan security forces? Is their combat role over? And, while it's true that the combat role of the Afghan forces might eventually come to an end when they desert their posts and hand over their weapons to the Taliban, nevertheless, that scenario could still be a few years away.

Mr. Hagel also conceded to lawmakers on Wednesday that, "We didn't handle some of this [prisoner exchange] right... We could have done a better job of keeping you informed."...

Heh, of course they didn't inform congress of the decision because President Obama's sole purpose in this prisoner exchange was to further his goal, and to fulfill his pledge, to close down Gitmo by freeing every last detainee. And, the only way to do reach that politically-mired goal is to find any pretext, like the release of Bowe Bergdahl, that allows the President to bypass congress and to release the Gitmo terrorist detainees, by hook or by crook!

Related Post: Gitmo prisoner release, and pretext, a dream come true for Obama!

Conclusion: As sad and pathetic as the comments from Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel might seem, there is no denying that these two clowns are an incredibly hilarious duo and that they represent the very best that comedy has to offer. It's simply undeniable.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

A residual force of US troops in Iraq, and in Afghanistan - there's a huge distinction between the two

U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued the following statement on the Al-Qaeda splinter group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant seizing control of the Iraqi city of Mosul today:
“Our worst fears about Iraq are being realized today. The black flags of Al-Qaeda are flying over Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, just as they do over Fallujah.

"Al-Qaeda affiliated militants are now pressing their offensive into other parts of western Iraq and possibly beyond. This growing threat to our national security interests is the cost of President Obama’s decision to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq in 2011, against the advice of our commanders and regardless of conditions on the ground.

“Unfortunately, the President is now making the same disastrous mistake in Afghanistan, increasing the risk that Al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies will return there just as they are in Iraq. It is not too late for the president to reverse this catastrophic decision and instead make any withdrawal of U.S. forces after this year contingent on conditions on the ground.

"At the same time, we call on the president to explain to Congress and the American people how he plans to address the growing threat to our homeland and our national security interests posed by the rapidly expanding Al-Qaeda safe haven[s]."
President Obama is planning on retaining a residual force of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, until 2016, when all US troops will be withdrawn from the country except for a military advisory group.

In 2011, the President refused to leave behind a residual force of US troops in Iraq; he even boasted about it and proclaimed triumphantly that he was withdrawing every last soldier from the country.

It should be noted, however, that there's a huge distinction between leaving behind a residual force of US troops in Afghanistan in 2014 and retaining a similar force of troops in Iraq back in 2011.

In 2011, the country of Iraq was mostly quiet after the US military routed Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed insurgents. A residual force of US troops could have prevented a reemergence of the insurgency because, after all, it's a lot easier to prevent an insurgency from reemerging than it is to squash a full blown insurgency already in progress. But Obama stubbornly chose not to retain such a presence in Iraq.

However, unlike the sense of calm that existed in Iraq in 2011, the current situation in Afghanistan is much different. Violence in Afghanistan has not subsided at all; on the contrary, it has increased. Hence, there is no reason to assume that a residual force of US troops will have sufficient manpower to deal with the situation.

That's right, Afghanistan in 2014 is not Iraq in 2011.

A residual force of US troops in Iraq in 2011 could have maintained the calm and the peace. In Afghanistan, however, as US troops continue to facilitate the Obama-mandated pull out, i.e. the President's "exit strategy", no such calm exists, hence a residual force most definitely will not have the ability to create a peaceful and calm environment. A huge difference.

And, in 2016, when the residual force of US troops packs up and leaves Afghanistan, the situation will only get worse.