Al Qaeda in Iraq kills 23, bringing July death toll to 280 - Obama ended the war "honorably"

Two car bomb explosions killed 23 people and wounded 47 in Iraq on Tuesday, bringing the July death toll in the country to at least 280, the AFP reported.

Last week, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq warned that the militant network had embarked on a new offensive and was returning to strongholds from which it was driven from while the American military was there.

Nevertheless, President Obama, speaking the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Monday, proclaimed that he had "pledged to end the war in Iraq honorably, and that’s what we’ve done..."

The President added: "We brought our troops home responsibly. They left... knowing they gave Iraqis a chance to forge their own future."

Flashback: Obama campaign refused to pay city of Springfield for 2008 campaign event

The city of Newport Beach, California says it may seek out the assistance of a collection agency to retrieve $35,000 the Obama campaign owes the city for providing police protection during a February, 2012 fund-raising event:

The bill was sent in May and was due in June. The city recently emailed the campaign a reminder.

The Democratic National Committee told the city about three weeks ago to deal with the Secret Service. However, [Secret Service] agency spokesman Max Milien [said] that it won't pay.

Councilwoman Leslie Daigle says the city intends to apply its usual policies and send the bill to collections.

Officials also note that Mitt Romney's campaign promptly paid a bill of $10,441 for his June fundraiser.

Earlier this year, NBC Chicago reported that the Obama campaign refused to pay the city of Springfield, Illinois $55,000 for the cost of providing police protection during a 2008 campaign event.

On August 23, 2008 the Obama campaign rolled through central Illinois to announce Joe Biden as its Vice Presidential running mate...

Before the event could begin, the city of Springfield had work to do, said Alderman Frank Edwards.

“There are a lot of things that they asked for,” Edwards said. “Extra police, move things. You’ve got to have this A to Z and we provided that.”

The event went off without a hitch. Obama moved on to Denver [and] got his party’s nomination...

But back in Springfield there remains one piece of unfinished business: an unpaid bill for $55,480.

“What they refused to pay was the $55,000 associated with police overtime for extra security,” said city Budget Director William McCarty...

On March 10, 2011 Alderman Edwards wrote the White House and the president “…to request your help.”

This latest round of appeals began, Edwards says, when he was going through a list of unpaid bills...

"I got to looking thru the list and here’s a bill that pops up, its $55,000,” Edwards said in an interview. “And we go why isn’t this paid.”

“They contacted the DNC. They contacted the Obama campaign,” he said but no one wanted to pay. “That’s when the finger pointing began because the Obama campaign said we are a private organization, we are not responsible for the security.”

To try and cut through the clutter Edwards asked the President to intercede: “…sometimes only the executive himself can cut through such inter-departmental differences of opinion,” he wrote in last year’s letter. There was no immediate response.

On November 15, 2011, Teal Baker, the Deputy COO of Obama for America, replied the Obama team wasn’t responsible for security or other costs.

This week a campaign officials said: “Presidential campaigns are not responsible for security costs.”

If a question persists Teal Baker wrote: “…we assume it should be directed to the U.S. Secret Service.”

Springfield officials contacted a local representative of the Secret Service but McCarty says they didn’t get too far, telling them: “We don’t pay bills out of here, you’ll need to contact Washington.

Springfield officials say there is a serious side to the debate about the bill. Like many American cities Springfield is in a terrible budget crunch and last week there were 13 laying offs.

“Fact is $55,000 is enough to cover the salary and benefits of one of those employees for a year,” McCarty said.

The Obama 2012 campaign declined to be interviewed but a official reiterated on background without attribution that the campaign does not pay for police overtime...

“I mean it all comes back to common sense,” said Edwards. “If you are asking for something to be done and you know it cost money then you ought to be prepared to pay for it. It’s that simple.”

Sadly, Mr. Edwards fails to comprehend the truth:

Whether it's the $800 billion dollar "porkulus" package or a $55,000 campaign event, ultimately it is the taxpayers who must foot the bill for Obama's reckless spending sprees.

P.S. It is unclear whether the NBC report had the desired effect, and whether the Obama campaign eventually reimbursed the city of Springfield for the $55,000 in expenditures.

Al Qaeda in Iraq continues its onslaught; Obama ends war in Iraq "responsibly"

From the New York Times:

Al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq clashed with the country's security forces Thursday, the second attack this week in what al Qaeda in Iraq's leader has depicted as a new offensive aimed at recapturing lost ground.

At least 12 people were killed in an attack in Diyala province, including five Iraqi policemen and seven militants, police said. The Associated Press reported that an Iraqi helicopter was shot down in the attack, but Iraqi officials said it had only been damaged...

"This is a setback because we are worried about the capacity of Iraqi forces in the face of the growing strength of al Qaeda," said Blaer Hassan, a provincial security official in Diyala.

On Sunday, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq... announced that an offensive was about to begin in which the insurgents would seek to regain ground they had held in Iraq before U.S. forces helped oust them.

The next day, the group began a coordinated series of at least 40 attacks that killed more than 100 people throughout Iraq.

In a related development, the Times reported on Friday:

Fifteen neighborhood officials in the Iraqi city of Baquba have resigned to protest what they said was the government's inability to protect them from Al Qaeda infiltrators, Iraqi officials said Friday.

The development was yet another indication in the past week of efforts by Al Qaeda to stage a resurgence in Iraq.

On Friday, an official... confirmed the resignations, saying the 15 officials, known as mukhtars, had left office in recent days "to save their family members' lives because of living under threats from Al Qaeda and militants."

Mukhtars are representatives elected in each neighborhood in Iraqi communities, and they act as liaisons between residents and the government...

The City Council official said that eight mukhtars had been assassinated in Baquba this year in Al Qaeda's effort to control neighborhoods... In addition, seven family members were killed in those attacks, he said.

Speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Monday, President Obama stated that, "Four years ago..., I pledged to end the war in Iraq honorably, and that’s what we’ve done... We brought our troops home responsibly. They left... knowing they gave Iraqis a chance to forge their own future."

Obama, highly experienced in the art of disqualifying his opponents; 1996 state senate bid

The AP on Tuesday noted that the Obama campaign has been running negative ads against Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in order "to deflect attention from the president's stewardship of the economy" and his failed policies.

"So much for the promise of hope, change and bipartisan unity", the AP noted. "To win a second term, the Democrat who once pledged to usher in a more civilized political era has turned to highly critical commercials — at turns personal and snarky."

The AP goes on to say:

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 given that the economy remains sluggish and the country is divided over or outright opposes some of the president's signature policies, like the health care law.

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 of the economy. 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...

Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist..., said Obama could not rest on a good guy image....

"'Obama the positive uniter' is not in the cards at this point," said Shrum.

It is worthy to note the mainstream media's contradictory statements on Obama's campaign strategy:

On one hand, Obama is said to have changed tactics since the 2008 campaign and to have suddenly resorted to negative campaigning. On the other hand, Obama was already a "proven... cut-throat campaigner," four years ago, "having assailed Sen. John McCain on TV."

Nevertheless, it is also worthy to note that Obama's campaign strategy, namely, his 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"

Hence, when the AP says, "Obama's best hopes for re-election may lie with disqualifying Romney" and that the President's "advisers say they have little choice but to assail Romney in ads... to deflect attention from the president's stewardship of the economy", it should come as no surprise: Obama had no record to run on in 1996, and he has no record to run on in 2012, hence he is simply doing what he knows best: attempting to disqualify his opponent.

However, since it is humanely impossible to invalidate Mitt Romney's voting petition signatures, the President has simply moved on to Plan B: he's running a negative campaign.

But of course, as the AP noted, Obama has already "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."

Obama gloats over his failures in Iraq & Afghanistan - VFW convention, speech

Speaking to military veterans at the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW] convention in Reno, Nevada on Monday, President Obama gloated over his failed policies in Iraq and Afghanistan - the President's policies have created a remarkable resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

93 Iraqis killed on Monday as Obama abandons Iraq and allows al Qaeda to wreak havoc upon the country

From the AP:

An onslaught of bombings and shootings killed 93 people across Iraq on Monday, officials said, in the nation's deadliest day so far this year.

The attacks come days after the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq declared a new offensive and warned in a statement that the militant group is reorganizing in areas from which it retreated before U.S. troops left the country last December.

Al-Qaida has been seeking to re-assert its might in the security vacuum left by the departing Americans...

The huge death toll Monday and an almost-daily drumbeat of killings last month show al-Qaida [is] fully capable of creating chaos in the foreseeable future...

The blasts... struck mostly at security forces and government offices — two of al-Qaida's favorite targets in Iraq...

The worst attack happened in the town of Taji, about 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of the capital. Police said bombs planted around five houses in the Sunni town exploded an hour after dawn, followed by a suicide bomber who detonated his explosives belt in the crowd of police who rushed to help. In all, 41 people were killed, police said.

And in a brazen attack on Iraq's military, three carloads of gunmen pulled up at an army base near the northeast town of town of Udaim and started firing at forces. Thirteen soldiers were killed, and the gunmen escaped before they could be caught, two senior police officials said...

Last weekend, the leader of al-Qaida's affiliate in Iraq - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - warned that the militant network is returning to strongholds from which it was driven from while the American military was here.

Al-Baghdadi also threatened the U.S.: "You will see them [al Qaeda terrorists] at the heart of your country, since our war against you has just started," he said.

As I noted on Sunday:

Last year, President Obama was adamant in his opposition to the idea of leaving behind a residual U.S. force in Iraq while the rest of the troops came home. But many Iraqi's have expressed fears that without a residual U.S. military presense in Iraq, the security gains made in recent years could fall by the wayside.

"The country [Iraq] is still in need [of U.S.] intelligence and military capabilities," Mohammed Salam, a Sunni government employee in Baghdad, said last month [AP]. "The Iraqi government should have kept some several thousands of U.S. troops in order to help Iraq forces maintain a reasonable level of security."

Afghan in uniform kills three Nato contractors, including 2 Americans

A man in an Afghan security force uniform on Sunday shot and killed three civilian contractors who were working with the U.S.-led military coalition as trainers, Nato and Afghan officials said...

ISAF did not identify the nationality of the deceased, but an Afghan official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity said that two Americans had been killed in the attack and they had been shot by an Afghan man in a police uniform in a military training facility.

Update: Some sources are reporting that 3 Americans were killed in the attack.

Insider attacks by the U.S. military and NATO's supposed Afghan allies have escalated dramatically since President Obama took office in 2009.

Already in the first 7 and a half months of this year, at least 26 coalition service members and 3 civilian contractors - working with the U.S.-led military coalition as trainers - have been killed by their purported Afghan allies. 35 coalition troops were killed by their so-called Afghan partners over a 12-month span last year; 20 were killed the previous year; 4 were killed in the years 2007 and 2008 combined.

The latest attack dealt yet another blow to President Obama's plans to hand over Afghanistan's security to the Afghan security forces by the middle of 2013; the U.S.-led military coalition is supposed to be working closely with the Afghan forces to train and mentor them.

Obama politicized Virginia Tech massacre, but still hasn't politicized Colorado shooting

The President apparently received a bit of wise counsel from his advisers last week, as evidenced by the fact that he did not repeat some of his past mistakes - namely, he refrained from discussing politics during a campaign stop Friday in Fort Myers, Florida, hours after a gunman killed 12 people and wounded dozens at a Colorado movie theater. Obama spoke about the tragedy and, in a surprising move for the politician par-excellence, left out the usual politics and rhetoric from his speech.

However, as I noted last year, Obama took a much different approach on April 16, 2007, the day of the Virginia Tech massacre.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Milwaukee, WI on the day of the Virginia Tech shooting, then-Presidential candidate Obama cunningly associated the tragic act of violence to a host of unrelated political issues, thereby politicizing the horrific tragedy - as he craftily stretched and squeezed the definition of the word "violence".



During memorial services for the victims of the Tucson, Arizona shooting rampage last year, the President also politicized the tragedy, but Mr. Obama's speech writer did a masterful and cunning job in making it appear as if the President had not politicized the matter.

Video - Obama politicizes Arizona memorial with duplicitous, political speech

And, as would be expected from any Presidential candidate - other than Obama - Mitt Romney also refrained from discussing politics during a campaign stop on Friday, choosing instead to focus exclusively on the “unspeakable tragedy” in Colorado.

At least 17 killed in Iraq, 100 injured, as Al Qaeda in Iraq makes comeback, and threatens attacks on US soil

From the AFP:

Bombings across Iraq killed [at least] 17 people [and wounded 100] on Sunday, the country's deadliest day in nearly three weeks, as Al-Qaeda warned it would target judges and prosecutors, and look to free Muslim prisoners...

The latest violence comes after the country suffered a spike in unrest in June when at least 282 people were killed... Attacks remain common, especially in the area south of Baghdad, in Mosul and in Ramadi.

The violence came as Al-Qaeda's front group in Iraq said in an audio message posted on jihadist forums that it would begin targeting judges and prosecutors, and appealed for the help of Sunni tribes in its quest to retake territory.

"We are starting a new stage," said the voice on the message, purportedly that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has been leader of the Islamic State of Iraq since May 2010...

Earlier this month, a truck bomb blamed on Al-Qaeda killed 25 people in a crowded market south of Baghdad.

Al-Baghdadi also threatened the U.S.: "You will see them [al Qaeda terrorists] at the heart of your country, since our war against you has just started," he said.

The AP noted that most of the recent attacks bear the hallmarks of insurgents linked to al-Qaida.

Last year, President Obama was adamant in his opposition to the idea of leaving behind a residual U.S. force in Iraq while the rest of the troops came home. But many Iraqi's have expressed fears that without a residual U.S. military presense in Iraq, the security gains made in recent years could fall by the wayside.

"The country [Iraq] is still in need [of U.S.] intelligence and military capabilities," Mohammed Salam, a Sunni government employee in Baghdad, said last month [AP]. "The Iraqi government should have kept some several thousands of U.S. troops in order to help Iraq forces maintain a reasonable level of security."

Obama eliminates NASA jobs & Space program, promises the Moon - Cincinnati, Ohio speech

Speaking at a campaign even in Cincinnati, Ohio on Monday, President Obama told his supporters that while "we believe in individual initiative and self-reliance..., there's some things we do together, and growing an economy is one of them... When we invested in the Hoover Dam... or the Internet, [or] sending a man to the moon -- all those things benefited everybody. And so that's the vision that I want to carry forward."

It's funny that the President would mention the Moon program, for indeed, in 2010, Obama decided to cancel the Constellation and Moon program that was launched in 2004 by President George W. Bush.

7000 Space Center employees have lost their jobs as a result of this decision, and the layoffs created a ripple effect which wiped out an additional 7000 jobs in the community and surrounding area.

In lieu of Mr. Bush's space program, the Obama administration offered up a new program to develop a commercial spacecraft - via private companies - that could transport astronauts into low Earth orbit. The administration estimated that the newly proposed program would create up to 1,700 jobs, which, somehow, would help alleviate the pain of losing the 7000 jobs at the Space Center and the additional 7000 jobs in the surrounding area.

Nice trade-off, Mr. President!

Obama: I never repeat my mistakes - campaign event, town hall meeting, Cincinnati, Ohio

Speaking at a town-hall-style campaign event at the Cincinnati [Ohio] Music Hall on Monday, President Obama claimed that he never repeats his mistakes.

Hmmm.........



Obama's second Stimulus proposal, the 'American Deterioration Act' Part Two?

Obama Outsourcing program, an act of TRUE LOVE!

There can be no doubt that President Obama's global outsourcing endeavors emanate from TRUE LOVE and from the compassion he has for his fellow global inhabitants, as evidenced by the fact that he has been willing to sacrifice American taxpayer [stimulus] dollars to advance his global outsourcing [stimulus] program.

It goes without saying that it will be difficult for Mitt Romney to overcome this kind of record and achievement, which can best be described as a brilliant mixture of domestic and global economic policies combined with an altruistic and unselfish foreign policy that has greatly enriched the lives of our global economic competitors.

If Mr. Romney has any chance of defeating Barack Obama in 2012, he will need to focus on the failing U.S. economy and offer the American people significant tax cuts, which could backfire on Mr. Romney, since less tax revenue would mean that the highly popular, taxpayer-funded outsourcing program instituted by President Obama would fall by the wayside.

Telecom firm received stimulus funds, sold U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran

ZTE USA, a U.S. subsidiary of the Chinese telecom firm, ZTE, has allegedly sold banned U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran, essentially bypassing current U.S. trade restrictions and embargoes imposed on Iran.

ZTE USA reaped substantial profits from the stimulus funds.

In January of 2010, US regional operator, Commnet Wireless contracted with ZTE USA to build broadband infrastructure network covering parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. And, at the time, ZTE USA and the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority were reportedly in discussions for additional US Broadband Stimulus funding from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

And, indeed, the National Telecommunications & Information Agency [NTIA] announced in March of 2010 that the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority received a $32.2 million broadband infrastructure grant as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to bring high-speed affordable broadband services to the Navajo Nation.

Likewise, Fierce Broadband Wireless News reported in April of 2011 that "the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and Commnet Wireless formalized a partnership this week after the two entities secured $32.1 million in broadband stimulus funds in March."

Hence, it appears as if ZTE USA, the company that allegedly sold banned U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran, profited substantially from the U.S. tax payer funded stimulus program.

Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal reported in October of 2010 that "four lawmakers [had] sent a letter Oct. 19 urging the Federal Communications Commission to take a closer look at ZTE..., and to consider restrictions that would make it harder for them to do business in the U.S."

The letter says Chinese telecom-gear makers are potentially subject to "significant influence by the Chinese military which may create an opportunity for manipulation of switches, routers, or software embedded in American telecommunications network so that communications can be disrupted, intercepted, tampered with, or purposely misrouted."

ZTE said the letter is a mischaracterization of the company, [as] it has no current ties to the Chinese government or military.

Apparently, the Obama administration ignored the letter, as evidenced by the fact that ZTE USA secured the $32.1 million in broadband stimulus funds the following year, in March of 2011.

And now, the company which previously disavowed any ties to the Chinese government, has allegedly sold banned U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran.

Jay Carney Lies about Obama, and his outsourcing of jobs

During a White House press briefing on Wednesday, Press Secretary, Jay Carney, was asked about the billions of dollars in stimulus funds that were sent to foreign companies.

President Obama's outsourcing of jobs abroad has essentially deprived many Americans from finding jobs right here in the U.S.

However, Mr. Carney, who seems to have mastered the art of lying from his colleagues in the Obama administration, put on his best poker face and denied that jobs have been outsourced by Barack Obama, the Outsourcer-in-Chief.

Obama administration frees convicted Al Qaeda terrorist from Gitmo and facilitates his admittance into a Sudanese rehabilitation program

Al Qaeda terrorist, Ibrahim al Qosi, worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama Bin Laden and served as the treasurer of an import-export business that served as a front for Al Qaeda. According to the summary of evidence that was presented at his tribunal, al Qosi participated in military operations against the coalition troops in Afghanistan. And now he is free as a bird and about to enter a Sudanese rehabilitation program where he is expected to gradually morph into a good Samaritan:

The United States sent home to Sudan on Tuesday one of Guantanamo's longest-held prisoners, a 52-year-old confessed al-Qaida foot soldier and sometime driver for Osama bin Laden whose release was seen as a crucial test case of the Obama-era war court. [Looks like the Obama-era war court passed the test with flying colors, heh.....]

Ibrahim al-Qosi pleaded guilty to terror charges in July 2010 in exchange for the possibility of release after serving a two-year sentence.

The Pentagon has not yet disclosed the transfer — which reduced the number of foreign prisoners at the Navy base in Cuba to 168 — to give Sudanese officials time to put the returnee in a rehabilitation program in the Horn of Africa nation. ["Rehabilitation program", right up Obama's alley!] But the repatriation demonstrated that the Obama administration is still in the business of deal-making and downsizing the prison camps. [Apparently, Obama is quite comfortable making deals with Al Qaeda members, but not with Republicans in congress, heh.....]

The White House is also reportedly considering transferring some Taliban captives at Guantanamo to Afghanistan as part of a regional peace accord there. ["Peace accord", heh......]

Although al-Qosi finished his [incredibly long 2-year] prison sentence, repatriation wasn't certain. Under Obama doctrine, like George W. Bush's before, the U.S. argues it can lawfully hold a convict indefinitely after his sentence is over by moving him out of the maximum-security Convict's Block to the communal POW-style lockup where most Guantanamo captives are held.

Instead, camp guards moved al-Qosi last week to special quarters that had a flat-screen TV, a refrigerator that let him eat at his leisure and a small outdoor gravel-topped patio, all inside a locked enclosure. [What?! No swimming pool?! ].....

Pakistani forces captured al-Qosi in December 2001, fleeing the U.S. assault on al-Qaida at Tora Bora. He was in a pack of Arab men suspected of being bin Laden's bodyguards. Al-Qosi was turned over to U.S. forces in Afghanistan, who shipped him to Guantanamo when the Pentagon opened Camp X-Ray a month later...

A side deal under seal on the Military Commissions docket cut [his] sentence to two years of confinement as a war criminal.

His return to his homeland ends more than two decades of association with al-Qaida from its earliest inception in Sudan and training camps in Afghanistan...

Among those captured with al-Qosi in December 2001 was his wife's father, Abdullah Tabarak, a Moroccan identified in leaked Defense Department documents as bin Laden's chief bodyguard...

At Guantanamo, al-Qosi had acquired a small personal library of books provided by his lawyers that included Obama's "Audacity of Hope" and Bush's "Decision Points." It was not immediately known if he was allowed to take the presidents' memoirs with him to Sudan.

But no doubt he found Obama's "Audacity of Hope" to be a much more enjoyable read than Bush's "Decision Points."....

Just a hunch, but my guess is they'll allow him to take Obama's "Audacity of Hope" with him to Sudan, but not the other book.....

Just a hunch.......

Obama is holding Middle Class Americans hostage until he extracts his ransom

Only a skilful and cunning rhetorician, the likes of Barack Obama, can make a completely twisted analogy and convince his brainwashed devotees [zombies] that he is making sense.

The President's twisted and disingenuous analogy: The Republicans in congress are holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to the high-end tax cuts.

The definition of a hostage-taker, or a kidnapper for that matter, is [typically] someone who holds something hostage in an effort to extract money from his intended victim. Needless to say, the hostages are also his victims.

President Obama fits this definition perfectly.

For indeed the President is seeking to extract huge amounts of cash [taxes] from families making more than $250,000 a year in order to support his left-wing addictions, namely, his reckless government spending sprees. And, that is why he is currently holding the middle-class families [those who are making less than $250,000], and their tax rates, as hostages: in order to obtain - from the higher-income families - the cash he needs to support his long-standing addiction to reckless and unbridled government spending.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are not seeking to extract money from anyone.

If, however, Obama is unable to extract the cash-ransom he seeks, then, sadly, the hostages, namely, the middle class families, must suffer the consequences, and their tax rates will increase.

Indeed, the Obama Presidency is not, and has never been about the American people or about middle class Americans; it is all about Obama, the cunningly masterful rhetorician, the ultimate narcissist and the hostage-taker-in-chief.

Bean Bags: Did Brian Terry face the same life-threatening restrictions as coalition troops in Afghanistan?

Last week, I noted the following:

British soldiers say that new procedural tactics implemented by the Obama administration in Afghanistan has resulted in a huge spike in military casualties.

The number of British soldiers being shot dead in Afghanistan is spiraling as new tactics ban them from shooting at the Taliban until they are fired at themselves...

Soldiers blame efforts to slash the number of civilian casualties ordered by the US general in command of Coalition forces, [General John Allen].

Troops... said they are now more vulnerable at road-junction checkpoints or while patrolling Taliban heartlands.

One corporal said: “When I arrived in Helmand, my officers said our tactics were going to change. They said if I saw somebody carrying a rifle or a rocket launcher, I shouldn’t fire at him. Only if he shot at me or a member of my patrol, and I could see a muzzle flash, could I use my weapon.

And now, the question arises: Are Border patrol agents in the U.S. receiving similar suicidal directives from the Obama administration?

Federal officials revealed on Monday that Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and an elite squad of federal agents initially fired bean bags -- not bullets -- at a group of heavily armed Mexican drug cartel bandits along the Arizona-Mexico border in December 2011, Fox News reported. Terry was shot and killed, during the exchange.

Likewise, Fox News reported in March of 2011 as follows:

"When the suspected aliens did not drop their weapons, two Border Patrol agents deployed ‘less than lethal' beanbags at the suspected aliens,” according to a FBI search warrant request filed in the U.S. District Court in Tucson on Dec. 29...

The warrant appears to support claims made by Terry’s brother, Kent, and former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo that Terry’s team -- part of the U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Unit, also known as BORTAC -- was under standing orders to always use bean-bag rounds first before using live ammunition.

"There was a group of four guys with my brother and two had lethal and two had non-lethal weapons there," Kent Terry told Fox News Friday...

One expert insists the order has been applied to at least all BORTAC teams in Arizona – if not the entire Border Patrol.

“That order stemmed from the incident on the El Paso-Juarez border in which an agent discharged a sidearm to defend himself from rock throwers,” said Andy Ramirez, founder of the advocacy group Friends of the Border Patrol. Ramirez was referring to a June shooting that left a 15-year-old Mexican boy dead.

Mexico was outraged at the incident, so Victor Manjarrez Jr., then chief of Border Patrol’s Tuscon sector, “acquiesced by ordering agents to use non-lethal loads,” Ramirez said...

Ramirez said regardless of whether the men were ordered to use the bean bags, the simple fact that a Border Patrol tactical team was armed with bean bag ammunition at all was “asinine.”

“BORTAC is like a SWAT unit; they’re our most highly trained, specialized unit of agents. These guys go in when we have a serious problem. It would be like sending a SWAT team into a bust with bean bags. ... They were outgunned by far.”

Sadly, the Obama administration has sent Brian Terry and his border patrol colleagues into the thick of battle armed with bean bags.

And, in all likelihood, Terry would still be alive today, were it not for this "asinine" and perilous 'bean bag' policy. Nevertheless, we still need to know whether U.S. border patrol agents are under strict orders to rely solely, and exclusively, on their beanbag weaponry until they are fired at themselves.

Is the administration giving them the same restrictive and suicidal directives that they have given to the NATO forces in Afghanistan?

Terry’s brother, Kent, and former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, say, 'yes'. They are, in all likelihood, correct.

Obama confesses: Secretaries pay lower tax rates than their bosses, speech, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The AP reported last year that, contrary to President Obama's disingenuous claims, secretaries do not pay a higher tax rate than their bosses.

"The data tell a different story [than Obama's]," the AP noted. "This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less [5.7%, 12.5%, 15%]."

Hence, it should come as no surprise that the President has finally confessed that he was twisting the facts all along.

Speaking at a campaign event Friday at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, President Obama asserted: "We need to have a tax code where secretaries aren't paying a lower tax rate than their bosses."

A freudian slip? Perhaps.

But hopefully Obama will not change the current tax code and force secretaries to pay a higher tax rate than their bosses....

Woman, children beheaded in Afghan 'honor killing' - As Obama capitulates to the Taliban, violence against women is spiking

President Obama is widely renowned [in the Liberal mainstream media and among his loyal devotees] as a so-called defender of women's rights. However, when women's rights conflicts with the Taliban's rights, the President has magnanimously chosen to push the women aside. And sadly, women must suffer the consequence of the President's bold policy and progressive ideology.

In March of this year, Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, endorsed a “code of conduct” in Afghanistan, which, among other things, permits husbands to beat their wives - under certain circumstances.

Karzai's endorsment of the aforementioned "code of conduct" was viewed by [human rights] activists as an effort - on the part of Karzai - to comply with President Obama's directive to reconcile with the Taliban in preparation for the planned withdrawal of Nato troops from Afghanistan.

Activists expressed anger that the gains they had achieved in women's rights, since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, were being used as a bargaining chip with the Taliban.

"It sends a really frightening message that women can expect to get sold out in this process [of negotiating a so-called 'peace' pact with the Taliban]," said one activist.

Which brings us to a related development:

A 30-year-old woman and two of her children were beheaded in Afghanistan [on Tuesday], in what appeared to be the latest in a rapidly growing trend of so-called honour killings.

Police said they suspected the woman Serata's divorced husband, barged into her house in the capital of Ghazni province and murdered her, as well as their eight-year-old son and nine-year-old daughter.

"The children saw the killer take their mother's head off, so he killed them too," a local policeman said.

Activists say there has been a sharp rise in violent attacks on women in Afghanistan over the past year.

They blame president Hamid Karzai's waning attention to women's rights as his government prepares for the exit of most foreign troops in 2014 and seeks - [in compliance with President Obama's directive] - to negotiate with the Taliban, Afghanistan's former Islamist rulers.

Excluding Serata's beheading, there have been 16 cases of "honour killings" recorded across the country over March and April... This compares to the 20 cases recorded for all of last year, said commissioner Suraya Subhrang, blaming increased insecurity and weak rule of law for the sharp rise... There have never been more than 20 cases a year.

Serata divorced her husband Mohammad Arif, 38, a year ago after enduring almost a decade of domestic abuse... Officers investigating the case described it as an honour killing, a phrase used to describe the murder of mostly women and girls accused of besmirching a family's reputation.

Afghan women have won back basic rights in education, voting and work since the austere rule of the Taliban was toppled just over a decade ago, although fear now mounts that freedoms will be traded away [by Obama & Co.] as Kabul and Washington seek talks with the Islamist group to secure a [so-called] "peaceful" end to the war.

Green-on-blue attacks continue unabated - Afghan soldier wounds 5 U.S. troops

An Afghan soldier shot and wounded five U.S. soldiers outside a NATO base in eastern Afghanistan late Tuesday.

ISAF refused to confirm the nationality of the wounded soldiers, but an Afghan official confirmed that they were Americans.

The attack comes after three British troops were shot dead by an Afghan police officer at a checkpoint in Afghanistan on Sunday. Last month, a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan was killed and nine others were injured when three Afghan police officers turned their guns on them.

Green-on-blue attacks by the U.S. and coalition forces' supposed Afghan allies have escalated dramatically since President Obama took office in 2009.

At least 26 [or 27] coalition service members have been killed by their purported Afghan allies in the first 6 months of this year alone; 35 coalition troops were killed by their so-called Afghan partners over a 12-month span last year; 20 were killed the previous year; 4 were killed in the years 2007 and 2008 combined.

The U.S. military is supposed to be working closely with their Afghan allies to train and mentor them in order to facilitate President Obama's plans to hand over Afghanistan's security to the Afghan forces by the middle of 2013. However, the huge spike in green-and-blue attacks casts an ominous pall over the President's precipitate retreat strategy, and also underscores the perils inherently intertwined with his defeatist mindset.

Obama administration's "Wait to be shot at" policy creating huge spike in military casualties

British soldiers say that new procedural tactics implemented by the Obama administration in Afghanistan has resulted in a huge spike in military casualties.

The number of British soldiers being shot dead in Afghanistan is spiralling as new tactics ban them from shooting at the Taliban until they are fired at themselves...

Soldiers blame efforts to slash the number of civilian casualties ordered by the US general in command of Coalition forces, [General John Allen].

A spokesman for Coalition forces said British soldiers were told to change procedures after a tactical review.

Troops... said they are now more vulnerable at road-junction checkpoints or while patrolling Taliban heartlands.

One corporal said: “When I arrived in Helmand, my officers said our tactics were going to change. They said if I saw somebody carrying a rifle or a rocket launcher, I shouldn’t fire at him. Only if he shot at me or a member of my patrol, and I could see a muzzle flash, could I use my weapon.

“I was shocked and so were my mates. We are trained to close in and kill the enemy, not to let him stroll on, watch us and let him choose the best time to ambush us.

“It has been hard to obey these orders on patrol. There have been many occasions when we have come under fire from the Taliban, who we’ve seen following us..."

The corporal added: “Older guys like me have seen tactics change over the years and 2012 is the hardest because we’re taking so many backward steps.

“I really feel for the families of the guys who’ve lost their lives, and I miss my mates who are dead.”...

Tory MP and ex-Army officer Patrick Mercer said he had spoken to soldiers about the change in tactics and said they were feeling “frustrated and vulnerable”.

He said: “The Taliban can move as they please, even when heavily armed, and we’re not interfering with them.

“Currently there is a reluctance to engage and a preference for a policing approach. The rise in fatal wounds from gunshots comes as no surprise. I feel deeply for the soldiers placed in this perilous position.”

The Daily Mail also reported that "a spokesman for the multinational forces headed by US General John Allen confirmed there had been a tactical review after which the British were told to alter their procedures" and to adhere to the new perilous mandate, the 'Wait to be shot at' directive.

Afghan police officer kills 3 British [NATO] soldiers; Insider attacks escalated dramatically since Obama became commander-in-chief

An Afghan police officer shot dead three British soldiers at a checkpoint in southern Helmand province. A fourth soldier was wounded.

The murdered soldiers were part of a Nato-led force who have been training Afghan counterparts in the police force to prepare for the end of 2014 UK withdrawal from Helmand.

Yesterday’s shooting happened at Checkpoint..., where the soldiers were attending a meeting of local village elders called a “Shura.”

A small platoon of Brits took position outside the compound in the afternoon local time as four entered for a planned meeting with police officers...

The police decided not to attend the meeting and the British soldiers decided to leave and re-join comrades waiting some distance outside.

They had approached the checkpoint “low-key” and leaving the main force outside so as not to offend the police with too many heavily-armed soldiers being in their home.

The British troops... were fatally wounded as they left the tiny compound.

They were fired upon by the [Afghan policeman] who was holed up in a Sangar - or machine gun nest - guarding a corner of the compound, which houses 20 elite Afghan National Civil Order Police ANCOPs.

Insider attacks by the U.S. military and NATO's supposed Afghan allies have escalated dramatically since President Obama took office in 2009.

Already in the first 6 months of this year, at least 26 coalition service members have been killed by their purported Afghan allies. 35 coalition troops were killed by their so-called Afghan partners over a 12-month span last year; 20 were killed the previous year; 4 were killed in the years 2007 and 2008 combined.

Taliban momentum: Seven civilians killed, 23 wounded in Kandahar, Afghanistan

A suicide car bomber killed seven people and wounded 23 near Kandahar University in southern Afghanistan on Monday, the AP reported.

The attack occurred near the gates of the university; the victims were all civilians.

Attacks in Kandahar [and other parts of Afghanistan] have been on the rise.

During his visit to Afghanistan in May, President Obama said that the "tide [of the Taliban] had turned" and that "we broke the Taliban's momentum." However, the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers, after returning from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan in May, said that the Taliban had grown stronger over the last three years.

"Attacks [in Afghanistan] are up," said Feinstein. "I think we'd both say that what we've found is that the Taliban is stronger." Rep. Rogers agreed with Feinstein's assessment.

The New York Times reported in May that the phrase "Afghan Good Enough" has been making the rounds at the White House and State Department.

"Gone is the much greater expectation that NATO will leave behind a cohesive central government with real influence beyond Kabul and a handful of other population centers," the Times reported. "Gone is the assumption that Helmand Province, Kandahar and the rest of the heavily contested south — where the bulk of the 2010 influx of troops was sent — will remain entirely in the control of the central government once that area is transferred to Afghanistan's fledgling national security forces."

New York Times Washington correspondent, David Sanger, author of a new book on the Obama administration's handling of the Afghan War, noted in a recent interview that "it seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of [Afghanistan] that are significantly under Taliban control."

Nevertheless, if Obama - the political rhetorician-in-chief - says "we broke the Taliban's momentum" that's really all that matters; all statements that run contrary to Obama's, are just the same old, worn out truisms.