Diplomats tell The Associated Press that Iran plans to vastly increase the speed of its uranium enrichment program, which can make both reactor fuel and the core of nuclear warheads.Likewise, Reuters reported that it had obtained a document - an IAEA communication sent to member states - stating that the Secretariat of the IAEA had received a letter from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran - dated January 23, 2013 - informing him of the aforementioned plans.
The diplomats say Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it wants to install thousands of high-technology machines at its main enriching site at Natanz, in central Iran. The machines can enrich two or three times faster than the present equipment being used by Tehran.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Iran plans to vastly increase the speed of its uranium enrichment program
From the AP:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
With Obama's 2014 deadline approaching, Afghans fleeing their homeland
From the Washington Post:
Two decades after Afghanistan witnessed one of the 20th century's most dramatic refugee crises, a quieter exodus is gaining momentum. Last year, at least 50,000 Afghans fled to Europe and Australia, more than twice as many as in 2011.
The flight reflects a growing fear that security will worsen after NATO's military withdrawal by the end of 2014, a date that has taken on near-apocalyptic symbolism in parts of the country.
Onyango Obama receives December date for deportation hearing, just one day after the President calls for immigration overhaul
Just one day after President Obama called for a dramatic overhaul of U.S. immigration laws that would create a path to citizenship for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, the President's uncle, Onyango Obama, a Kenyan native and illegal resident of the U.S., received a hearing date, scheduled for December 3, 2013, to determine whether he will be permitted to remain in the country. But, by the time December 3 arrives, the President's immigration overhaul will likely be passed, creating a new path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and Onyango's immigration hearing will no longer be necessary. [Heh, Chalk one up for the Obamas!]
Onyango Obama defied a deportation order issued against him 21 years ago. In 2011, he was arrested on DUI charges. Shortly after his arrest, Onyango was asked whether he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail.
"I think I will call the White House," he replied.
However, he was later detained without bail by Federal immigration officials after they discovered he had defied his deportation order 21 years ago.
But a little more than two weeks after his arrest, he was quietly released from prison.
Federal immigration officials refused to divulge whether he had posted bail, whether they were keeping track of his whereabouts, or whether they were still seeking his deportation........
And, as I noted in an earlier post: "I suppose we'll never know whether Onyango made that call to the White House or not......" Ahem......
In 2010, an immigration court granted asylum to Pres. Obama's Kenyan aunt, Zeituni Onyango, setting her on the path to U.S. citizenship. Zeituni was given a deportation order in '04, but she continued to reside in the U.S. illegally - until, ultimately, she was granted asylum. [Chalk one up for the Obamas!]
In 2005, when Barack Obama was sworn in as a U.S. senator from Illinois, Zeituni Onyango attended his swearing-in ceremony. And she donated $260 to Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. However, despite the fact that she had been living in the U.S. illegally since 2004, the Prevaricator-in-Chief claimed he was unaware that she had been living in the country illegally. And, the $260 campaign contribution - an insignificant and paltry sum, considering the loads of cash that Obama received from foreign donors - was returned to Ms. Onyango.
In 2008, just days before the Presidential election, the Bush administration issued a directive requiring high level approval before federal agents could arrest fugitive immigrants.
The AP noted at the time that, "The Bush administration had imposed the unusual directive days before the election of Barack Obama, whose aunt was living in the United States illegally."
Onyango Obama defied a deportation order issued against him 21 years ago. In 2011, he was arrested on DUI charges. Shortly after his arrest, Onyango was asked whether he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail.
"I think I will call the White House," he replied.
However, he was later detained without bail by Federal immigration officials after they discovered he had defied his deportation order 21 years ago.
But a little more than two weeks after his arrest, he was quietly released from prison.
Federal immigration officials refused to divulge whether he had posted bail, whether they were keeping track of his whereabouts, or whether they were still seeking his deportation........
And, as I noted in an earlier post: "I suppose we'll never know whether Onyango made that call to the White House or not......" Ahem......
In 2010, an immigration court granted asylum to Pres. Obama's Kenyan aunt, Zeituni Onyango, setting her on the path to U.S. citizenship. Zeituni was given a deportation order in '04, but she continued to reside in the U.S. illegally - until, ultimately, she was granted asylum. [Chalk one up for the Obamas!]
In 2005, when Barack Obama was sworn in as a U.S. senator from Illinois, Zeituni Onyango attended his swearing-in ceremony. And she donated $260 to Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. However, despite the fact that she had been living in the U.S. illegally since 2004, the Prevaricator-in-Chief claimed he was unaware that she had been living in the country illegally. And, the $260 campaign contribution - an insignificant and paltry sum, considering the loads of cash that Obama received from foreign donors - was returned to Ms. Onyango.
In 2008, just days before the Presidential election, the Bush administration issued a directive requiring high level approval before federal agents could arrest fugitive immigrants.
The AP noted at the time that, "The Bush administration had imposed the unusual directive days before the election of Barack Obama, whose aunt was living in the United States illegally."
The unusual directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement made clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, who at the time was living in public housing in Boston. ..The AP noted in a separate report:
The directive was lifted at the end of November, after Obama's win, ICE spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said.
The Homeland Security Department had imposed an unusual directive days before the 2008 election requiring high-level approval before federal agents nationwide could arrest fugitive immigrants including Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father. The directive from ICE expressed concerns about "negative media or congressional interest," according to a copy of that directive obtained by AP.
[Benghazi] - Flashback 2010: Hillary Clinton on Afghanistan: "We helped create the problem!"
The U.S. "helped create the problem we are now fighting" in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opined in 2010. Clinton contended that the U.S., in the 1980's, supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet backed Communist regime in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen later morphed into Al Qaeda, which perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, which prompted the U.S-led Afghan war.
However, it should be noted that the U.S., back then in the 80's, had no way of knowing the Mujahideen would later turn against America. On the flip side, President Obama should have known - in 2011 - that the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in Libya - that he supported - would eventually turn around and attack Americans in Benghazi, and that the rebel extremists would help facilitate attacks against Americans elsewhere - Algeria etc.
Clearly, Obama helped create/created the problems we are now facing in Libya, and the neighboring countries. But Hillary will never acknowledge this fact, nor will she ever acknowledge her role in creating these problems.
However, it should be noted that the U.S., back then in the 80's, had no way of knowing the Mujahideen would later turn against America. On the flip side, President Obama should have known - in 2011 - that the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in Libya - that he supported - would eventually turn around and attack Americans in Benghazi, and that the rebel extremists would help facilitate attacks against Americans elsewhere - Algeria etc.
Clearly, Obama helped create/created the problems we are now facing in Libya, and the neighboring countries. But Hillary will never acknowledge this fact, nor will she ever acknowledge her role in creating these problems.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Iranian regime intimidating journalists before election, warning Iranians not to meddle
During the widespread protests that erupted in Iran after the disputed June 2009 presidential election, President Obama refused to issue a strong statement on the matter, because, as he explained, "It is not productive... to be seen as meddling - the U.S. president meddling - in Iranian elections."
The President later reaffirmed his commitment not to meddle in Iran's internal affairs, in a statement released by the White House on November 4, 2009 in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the seizing of the American Embassy in Tehran.
“We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs," the statement read. “We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community.”
Yep, you read that correctly........
Conversely, the President chose a different route, in 2011, when widespread protests broke out in Egypt; Obama demanded that Hosni Mubarak step down from office. However, it is important to note that the Iranian regime - unlike the Mubarak regime - is a benevolent, and friendly, regime, which explains the discrepancy on Obama's part......
Obama apparently knows when to meddle and when not to meddle.
In any case, the next Presidential election in Iran is right around the corner, and the Iranian regime is doing everything within its power to ensure that journalists covering the event adhere to Obama's policy of not meddling in the regime's internal affairs.
In the past two days, Iranian authorities arrested more than a dozen journalists, in an effort to both intimidate media critics ahead of the presidential election and avoid the widespread protests that broke out after the disputed election in 2009. Additionally, several Journalists have said they were summoned by the Iranian authorities to discuss the forthcoming election.
Earlier this month, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement to the Iranian people warning them not to question the fairness of the upcoming election.
Of course, Obama wasn't the only world leader who chose not to meddle in Iran's 2009 Presidential election. As I noted in 2009: Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, seemingly took his cue from Obama when he stated Hezbollah's position on Iran's Presidential election: "Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's internal affairs... We don't side with anyone. This is an internal Iranian issue."
Hezbollah apparently agreed with Obama's position.......
Incidentally, as I noted back in 2009, Roberto Micheletti, the former President of Honduras wasn't too happy with Obama when the latter chose to meddle in Honduras' internal affairs:
The President later reaffirmed his commitment not to meddle in Iran's internal affairs, in a statement released by the White House on November 4, 2009 in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the seizing of the American Embassy in Tehran.
“We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs," the statement read. “We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community.”
Yep, you read that correctly........
Conversely, the President chose a different route, in 2011, when widespread protests broke out in Egypt; Obama demanded that Hosni Mubarak step down from office. However, it is important to note that the Iranian regime - unlike the Mubarak regime - is a benevolent, and friendly, regime, which explains the discrepancy on Obama's part......
Obama apparently knows when to meddle and when not to meddle.
In any case, the next Presidential election in Iran is right around the corner, and the Iranian regime is doing everything within its power to ensure that journalists covering the event adhere to Obama's policy of not meddling in the regime's internal affairs.
In the past two days, Iranian authorities arrested more than a dozen journalists, in an effort to both intimidate media critics ahead of the presidential election and avoid the widespread protests that broke out after the disputed election in 2009. Additionally, several Journalists have said they were summoned by the Iranian authorities to discuss the forthcoming election.
Earlier this month, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement to the Iranian people warning them not to question the fairness of the upcoming election.
Of course, Obama wasn't the only world leader who chose not to meddle in Iran's 2009 Presidential election. As I noted in 2009: Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, seemingly took his cue from Obama when he stated Hezbollah's position on Iran's Presidential election: "Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's internal affairs... We don't side with anyone. This is an internal Iranian issue."
Hezbollah apparently agreed with Obama's position.......
Incidentally, as I noted back in 2009, Roberto Micheletti, the former President of Honduras wasn't too happy with Obama when the latter chose to meddle in Honduras' internal affairs:
Responding to reports that US Ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, met with former Honduran dictator, Manuel Zelaya on Thursday, interim president Roberto Micheletti told a reporter: "If you are sure that has taken place, that the ambassador has met with Zelaya, it is MEDDLING."However, as I stated earlier, the Iranian regime is a benevolent, and friendly, regime, which explains the discrepancy on Obama's part.......
"The ambassador is making a serious mistake if he has done that," Micheletti said. "We don't want any country interfering in Honduras' affairs."
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Afghanistan: Suicide bomber kills 10 policemen & counterterrorism official, as violence continues unabated
From the AP:
A provincial counterterrorism department head and at least 11 others were killed in bombings around Afghanistan on Saturday, including 10 policemen who died when a suicide bomber driving a motorcycle blew himself up in Afghanistan's northern Kunduz province, officials said... 14 other policemen and five civilians were wounded in the explosion...Reuters noted on Monday that violence across the country has been increasing over the past year, raising concerns about how the Afghan security forces will be able to manage once the U.S. and coalition troops withdraw from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, despite the increase in violence, President Obama announced last week that, beginning this spring, Afghan forces will take over the lead security role in their country - sooner than planned.
Earlier on Saturday, a remote-controlled bomb planted on a bicycle exploded, killing one police officer and one civilian in the eastern city of Ghazni... Another five people were wounded.
Suicide attacks by insurgents have become a near daily occurrence around Afghanistan.
On Friday, a suicide car bomber killed five civilians and wounded another 25
Friday, January 25, 2013
Jay Carney: Court ruling contradicts 150 years of practice dating back to 2007
From Reuters:
Wait, I just realized something! Harry Reid looks pretty young for a 150+ year-old man! The guy's eating his wheaties!
P.S. The New York Times notes that, "Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have used the tactic of “pro forma” session to block presidents from making recess appointments." But of course, President Obama is above the law......
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama violated the U.S. Constitution when he... made three "recess" appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012, while the Senate was on one of its many recesses but not formally adjourned for the year.Yep, the ruling contradicted 150 years of practice by both Democratic and Republicans, going all the way back to 2007 when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid held pro forma sessions to block Bush nominees.
"Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception," said the ruling by a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The panel said the Senate was not truly in recess when Obama made his appointments.
White House spokesman Jay Carney called the ruling "novel and unprecedented" and said it contradicted 150 years of practice by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Wait, I just realized something! Harry Reid looks pretty young for a 150+ year-old man! The guy's eating his wheaties!
P.S. The New York Times notes that, "Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have used the tactic of “pro forma” session to block presidents from making recess appointments." But of course, President Obama is above the law......
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Clinton vows to use video to fight the terrorists
From the AFP:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised Wednesday that the United States would use the Internet and social media in its fight against Al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamist groups.And then, if Al Qaeda attacks the U.S., Obama can always blame it on the video. Heh.........
The outgoing top diplomat said the US State Department had "started two organizations to deal with countering violent extremism" on the Internet, and would use tools such as Twitter to combat online anti-Americanism.
"Social media is a great tool," Clinton told lawmakers when speaking to Congress about the deadly attack on a US mission in Benghazi, Libya four months ago...
The new operation she has set up is "staffed with inter-agency experts," and "I'm not saying anything that's classified, but it's beginning to try to respond to Al-Qaeda and other jihadist propaganda.
"If they put up a video which talks about how terrible Americans are, we put up a video which talks about, you know, how terrible they are," Clinton said.
Obamacare penalties could leave smokers without healthcare
From the AP:
Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's healthcare law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.
The Affordable Care Act -- "Obamacare" to its detractors -- allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.
For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums...
Nearly one of every five U.S. adults smokes. That share is higher among lower-income people, who also are more likely to work in jobs that don't come with health insurance and would therefore depend on the new federal healthcare law...
Several provisions in the federal law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options...
First, the law allows insurers to charge older adults up to three times as much as their youngest customers.
Second, the law allows insurers to levy the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging younger ones less.
And finally, government tax credits that will be available to help pay premiums cannot be used to offset the cost of penalties for smokers.
“The effect of the smoking (penalty) allowed under the law would be that lower-income smokers could not afford health insurance,” said Richard Curtis, president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions, a nonpartisan research group that called attention to the issue with a study about the potential impact in California.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Angry Hillary Clinton says motive behind Benghazi attacks not important ANYMORE!
Testifying at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, a visibly angry Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, assailed Republican lawmakers who questioned the Obama administration's factual distortions and phony talking points during the ensuing weeks after the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
"What difference does it make at this point" to discuss the motive behind the attack? Clinton said in a tone of phony righteous indignation, eerily similar to the tone that President Obama has used to fend off questions about the Benghazi, Libygate scandal.
Sadly, and not surprisingly, while the administration felt, during the ensuing weeks after the attack, that it was of utmost importance to offer up a phony motive for the attack - now that the cover has been blown, and the deceit and facade have been exposed, the administration has reached the conclusion that it is no longer an imperative to discuss the assailants' true motive - Al Qaeda sponsored terror - nor is it necessary to probe the White House cover-up.
"What difference does it make at this point" to discuss the motive behind the attack? Clinton said in a tone of phony righteous indignation, eerily similar to the tone that President Obama has used to fend off questions about the Benghazi, Libygate scandal.
Sadly, and not surprisingly, while the administration felt, during the ensuing weeks after the attack, that it was of utmost importance to offer up a phony motive for the attack - now that the cover has been blown, and the deceit and facade have been exposed, the administration has reached the conclusion that it is no longer an imperative to discuss the assailants' true motive - Al Qaeda sponsored terror - nor is it necessary to probe the White House cover-up.
Benghazi fiasco leaves seven Americans dead? Including three in Algeria?
Question: How many Americans were murdered as a result of the Obama administration's reluctance to put boots on the ground in Benghazi to confront the terrorists?
Four Americans? The four who were killed during the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in September?
Perhaps. But according to the latest report, it is quite possible that seven Americans died as a result of the Obama administration's inaction.
In a related development, which connects the Libyan Arab Spring to the attack on the Algerian gas facility:
Four Americans? The four who were killed during the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in September?
Perhaps. But according to the latest report, it is quite possible that seven Americans died as a result of the Obama administration's inaction.
Several Egyptian members of the squad of militants that lay bloody siege to an Algerian gas complex last week also took part in the deadly attack on the United States Mission in Libya in September, a senior Algerian official said Tuesday.If the kidnapper is indeed telling the truth, that would mean some of the terrorists who participated in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - which claimed the lives of four Americans - also took part in the attack on the Algerian gas complex that left three Americans dead. That would mean seven Americans died as a result of the Obama administration's disinclination/reluctance to put boots on the ground in Libya to confront the terrorists.
Three of the militants were captured alive, and one of them described the Egyptians’ role in both assaults under interrogation by the Algerian security services, [an Algerian] official said...
But the Algerian official did not say why the captured kidnapper’s assertion — that some fighters had taken part in both the Benghazi and Algerian attacks — should be considered trustworthy. Nor did he say whether it was obtained under duress.
Instead, he focused on the chaos unleashed by the recent uprisings throughout the region, leaving large ungoverned areas where extremists can flourish.
“This is the result of the Arab Spring,” said the official said, who spoke on condition of anonymity because investigations into the hostage crisis were still under way. “I hope the Americans are conscious of this.”
In a related development, which connects the Libyan Arab Spring to the attack on the Algerian gas facility:
The terrorist leader who claimed to have mounted the deadly raid on an Algerian gas plant in the name of al Qaeda is the same one-eyed jihadist who once bragged his fighters “benefit” from the loose weapons streaming out of Libya...
“We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world,” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, then a leader of the north Africa-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), told the Mauritanian news agency ANI in November 2011. “As for our benefitting from the [Libyan] weapons, this is a natural thing in these kinds of circumstances.”...
Several major Algerian news outlets, including the state-run Numidia News, reported that the militants crossed into Algeria from the Libyan border just 50 miles to the east, drove vehicles with Libyan license plates and dressed in Libyan military uniforms to attack the BP joint venture facility outside In Amenas, Algeria. They were reportedly armed with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and several bombs...
The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), told ABC News Sunday that the U.S. didn’t react quickly enough to stop the arms from seeping through Libya’s porous borders.
“Remember when Gadhafi fell, all of those arms rooms, all of those weapons caches, while we were debating… walked out the back door, fueled the insurgency and the extremist groups, including al Qaeda affiliates to feel emboldened…” he said. “So now they’re well armed. You have battle-hardened fighters from Libya. It really is naive to believe this isn’t getting worse.”
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Obama creating immeasurable instability in the world
President Obama has been both a staunch supporter and a willing facilitator of the so-called Arab Spring.
Obama tossed former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus, and now Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood - the notorious group of extremists that Obama befriended early on in his Presidency [well before the Egyptian uprising] - is running the show.
Obama also aided the Libyan rebels during the Libyan uprising. And now, loose weapons, from Libya, are being smuggled into Mali, and are being used by the Malian insurgents.
Moreover, weapons looted from Libya were among the arms that Islamist terrorists used in their recent terrorist attack in Algeria.
One weapons expert noted that, "The weapons proliferation that we saw coming out of the Libyan conflict was of a scale greater than any previous conflict — probably 10 times more weapons than we saw going on the loose in places like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan."
Oh, and did we forget to mention the Benghazi, U.S. consulate attack? And the Al Qaeda infested Libyan government?
Conclusion: We have yet to witness the full consequence, and extent, of Obama's disastrous foreign policy decisions. The chaos and mayhem are rapidly expanding, and swiftly spiraling out of control.
And yet, President Obama claims that he has brought, and continues to bring, stability to the world, when in fact, he has wreaked, and continues to wreak unprecedented, immeasurable instability in the world.
Ironically, and incredibly, Obama is the exact opposite of the image that he and the mainstream media are projecting.
Clearly, the Emperor has no clothes on - but sadly, his willfully blind minions refuse to acknowledge this truth. Which raises the question: When will they finally remove their blinders and admit once and for all that the Emperor is stark naked?
Obama tossed former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus, and now Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood - the notorious group of extremists that Obama befriended early on in his Presidency [well before the Egyptian uprising] - is running the show.
Obama also aided the Libyan rebels during the Libyan uprising. And now, loose weapons, from Libya, are being smuggled into Mali, and are being used by the Malian insurgents.
Moreover, weapons looted from Libya were among the arms that Islamist terrorists used in their recent terrorist attack in Algeria.
One weapons expert noted that, "The weapons proliferation that we saw coming out of the Libyan conflict was of a scale greater than any previous conflict — probably 10 times more weapons than we saw going on the loose in places like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan."
Oh, and did we forget to mention the Benghazi, U.S. consulate attack? And the Al Qaeda infested Libyan government?
Conclusion: We have yet to witness the full consequence, and extent, of Obama's disastrous foreign policy decisions. The chaos and mayhem are rapidly expanding, and swiftly spiraling out of control.
And yet, President Obama claims that he has brought, and continues to bring, stability to the world, when in fact, he has wreaked, and continues to wreak unprecedented, immeasurable instability in the world.
Ironically, and incredibly, Obama is the exact opposite of the image that he and the mainstream media are projecting.
Clearly, the Emperor has no clothes on - but sadly, his willfully blind minions refuse to acknowledge this truth. Which raises the question: When will they finally remove their blinders and admit once and for all that the Emperor is stark naked?
Monday, January 21, 2013
Weapons from Libya Used in Mali insurgency, Algeria raid
From the Wall Street Journal:
Hello, Arab Spring!! Hello, President Obama!!
Yep, President Obama and Osama Bin Laden were both spot-on when they extolled "The Winds of Change" blowing through the Arab world!
No doubt about it - the Arab Spring is the best thing to happen since 2008, when Obama won the Presidential election!
Weapons looted from Libya were among the arms that Islamist terrorists used in their attack at an Algerian gas facility, according to Algerian officials and weapons experts examining evidence in the aftermath of the hostage crisis...One weapons expert noted that, "The weapons proliferation that we saw coming out of the Libyan conflict was of a scale greater than any previous conflict — probably 10 times more weapons than we saw going on the loose in places like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan."
[Libya has] become an "ammunition supermarket" feeding the al Qaeda-linked militants who reside in the lawless North African deserts linking Libya, Chad, Niger, Algeria and Mali, according to Max Dyck, the head of the United Nations Mine Action Program in Libya...
A senior Obama administration official called the outflow of fighters and weapons from Libya the game changer that empowered rebels in Mali and "tipped the balance" there.
Hello, Arab Spring!! Hello, President Obama!!
Yep, President Obama and Osama Bin Laden were both spot-on when they extolled "The Winds of Change" blowing through the Arab world!
No doubt about it - the Arab Spring is the best thing to happen since 2008, when Obama won the Presidential election!
Taliban targeting government in Kabul, Obama accelerating Afghan withdrawal
Appearing in an interview earlier this year, New York Times Washington correspondent, David Sanger - the author of a book, which discusses among other things, the Obama administration's handling of the Afghan War - stated that although one of the President's goals in Afghanistan was to keep the [Capital] city of Kabul from falling, this "does not necessarily mean that other parts of the country might not fall into Taliban control."
Sanger added: "It seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of the country that are significantly under Taliban control."
A sad reflection on the President's Afghan policy, indeed. But, truth be told, recent attacks in Kabul do not auger well for Afghanistan's Capital either.
Nevertheless, despite the increase in violence all across Afghanistan, President Obama announced last week that, beginning this spring, Afghan forces will take over the lead security role in their country - sooner than planned.
Related Post: Dianne Feinstein & Mike Rogers vs. Obama on whether the Taliban has grown stronger during Obama's Presidency
Sanger added: "It seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of the country that are significantly under Taliban control."
A sad reflection on the President's Afghan policy, indeed. But, truth be told, recent attacks in Kabul do not auger well for Afghanistan's Capital either.
Suicide bombers and gunmen launched a seven-hour attack on the headquarters of the Kabul traffic police on Monday, local officials said, the second coordinated attack on a government building in less than a week. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assault...Both of those attacks also occurred in the Capital city of Kabul.
Violence across the country has been increasing over the past year, sparking concern about how the 350,000-strong Afghan security forces will be able to manage once foreign troops withdraw by the end of 2014...
Three traffic police were killed and four wounded in the [attack on Monday]...
"Honestly speaking, this type of attack, at the start of the year, indicates the coming months are going to be tough," a government official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Last week, a band of six suicide bombers attacked the National Directorate of Security (NDS), killing two of its guards. That attack followed a failed assassination attempt on NDS chief Asadullah Khalid.
Nevertheless, despite the increase in violence all across Afghanistan, President Obama announced last week that, beginning this spring, Afghan forces will take over the lead security role in their country - sooner than planned.
Related Post: Dianne Feinstein & Mike Rogers vs. Obama on whether the Taliban has grown stronger during Obama's Presidency
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Gun Violence: Obama to sign a slew of executive orders designed to curtail his abuse of executive power - Satire
President Obama said Wednesday he will issue a slew of executive orders in the coming weeks designed to curtail his excessive abuse of executive power, which, he said, resulted in an increase in gun violence both in Libya and along the Arizona-Mexican border.
Guns linked to the Obama administration's Fast and Furious gunrunning operation were found at the scene where U.S. border patrol agent, Brian Terry, was murdered, in 2010. Additionally, some retired military officials say they believe that some of the weapons used to kill four Americans in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, last year, might have come from a cache of weapons that were part of a secret arms transfer to Libyan rebels approved by President Obama.
"I would prefer not to continue to abuse my executive powers with this latest onslaught of executive orders," the President said, "but my past abuse of executive powers has resulted in increased gun violence both in Libya and along the Arizona-Mexican border. Hence, I have little choice but to issue a new batch of executive orders that will make it illegal for me to abuse my executive powers, unless, and until, I sign an executive order stating otherwise."
The President also announced his decision to appoint Attorney General Eric Holder as the head of a new task force that will develop policies to help combat gun violence.
"Eric has done a remarkable job in restricting the flow of firearms to Mexican drug cartels," the President said, "and I believe he is the right person to lead this new task force. Like me, Eric is a man of extreme integrity, and his track record in reducing gun violence is beyond belief! Give it up for Eric!"
Related Post: Why didn't Obama seek stricter gun-control measures in Libya?
Guns linked to the Obama administration's Fast and Furious gunrunning operation were found at the scene where U.S. border patrol agent, Brian Terry, was murdered, in 2010. Additionally, some retired military officials say they believe that some of the weapons used to kill four Americans in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, last year, might have come from a cache of weapons that were part of a secret arms transfer to Libyan rebels approved by President Obama.
"I would prefer not to continue to abuse my executive powers with this latest onslaught of executive orders," the President said, "but my past abuse of executive powers has resulted in increased gun violence both in Libya and along the Arizona-Mexican border. Hence, I have little choice but to issue a new batch of executive orders that will make it illegal for me to abuse my executive powers, unless, and until, I sign an executive order stating otherwise."
The President also announced his decision to appoint Attorney General Eric Holder as the head of a new task force that will develop policies to help combat gun violence.
"Eric has done a remarkable job in restricting the flow of firearms to Mexican drug cartels," the President said, "and I believe he is the right person to lead this new task force. Like me, Eric is a man of extreme integrity, and his track record in reducing gun violence is beyond belief! Give it up for Eric!"
Related Post: Why didn't Obama seek stricter gun-control measures in Libya?
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Al Qaeda infested Libyan government decided not to stop the attack on U.S. consulate in Benghazi
From Time magazine:
Why, you ask?
I noted in November:
Incidentally, I've also noted previously, the Panetta contradiction:
One Benghazi resident who did not want to be named told TIME that [Libyan] government security forces appeared to have decided not to stop the Sept. 11 attack while it was in progress. The resident said that a colonel from the Ministry of Defense, a friend of his, had paid a social call to his home during the hours of the assault on the consulate building that night, and had rebuffed pleas for help during the battle. “He began getting calls from people. One said it was war over there,” says the resident. “He said he had instructions not to interfere. Every time, he said it wasn’t serious.”It's quite obvious that the Libyan government deliberately chose not to stop the attack. The assault on the U.S. consulate, and CIA annex, lasted about 8 hours; clearly, they could have stopped it, but chose not to.
Why, you ask?
I noted in November:
The facts are slowly trickling in, and we now know that Al Qaeda terrorists are working inside the Libyan government [inside the interior ministry etc.]. They have also been put in charge of border security, thus allowing more and more Al Qaeda terrorists to flow into the country.That explains everything.
Moreover, an Al Qaeda member, Abdelhakim Belhaj, had been put in charge of, among other things, overseeing security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 until at least the spring of 2012.
Obama's good buddy, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) - appointed him to this position.
And, Obama, in his efforts to oust the Gaddafi regime, went along with all of this and effectively empowered Al Qaeda to wreak havoc upon Libya.
And now, as a result of this shocking, calamitous foreign policy decision, four U.S. diplomats are dead.
Hence, the cover-up.
Incidentally, I've also noted previously, the Panetta contradiction:
Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, admitted to reporters, during a press briefing in October, that the U.S. military had the resources in the region to rescue the diplomats.
"We quickly responded... in terms of deploying forces to the region," Panetta said. "We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that."
"But", Panetta said, "you don't deploy forces into harm's way... without having some real-time information about what's taking place.[They didn't have real time information, my foot] And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
But shortly after the aforementioned briefing, the storyline changed. According to the revised version, the military didn't have the resources nearby, hence the rescue teams could not reach Benghazi in time to save the lives of the U.S. diplomats...
The administration's narative received a few additional facelifts, and twists, over the next several weeks; I'm still waiting for the final cut.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
US may leave no troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014, "Afghan good enough" is "good enough!"
New York Times Washington correspondent, David Sanger, the author of a book, which discusses among other things, the Obama administration's handling of the Afghan War, appeared in an interview earlier this year. Sanger noted that when President Obama ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009, with a set timetable for withdrawal, he did so with the stated intention, that win or lose, the troops would be withdrawn by the set deadline.
This sad notation from Mr. Sanger prompted a panel discussion as to whether the President's decision to send troops to the battlefield with a "win or lose" timetable for withdrawal was "conscionable" or not; if the President wasn't firmly committed to "winning" the conflict, why send the troops into harm's way?
Mr. Sanger went on to say that one of the President's goals in Afghanistan was to keep the city of Kabul from falling. But this "does not necessarily mean that other parts of the country might not fall into Taliban control", he said, adding that "it seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of the country that are significantly under Taliban control."
"Conscionable"? Good grief!
Likewise the New York Times reported at the time that the White House had "lowered the bar on how success is defined in the Afghan war."
The Times reported that the phrase "Afghan Good Enough" had 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."
Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, appearing in an interview earlier this year, was asked about the White House's latest catchphrase, "Afghan Good Enough". Gen. Allen insisted that, contrary to the White House's assertion - "Afghan Good Enough" is not "good enough."
"We're all sacrificing way too much for something that is "Afghan good enough", the General said.
Sadly, the White House disagrees with this sentiment.
In a related development, the AP reported on Tuesday that "the U.S. might leave no American troops in Afghanistan after the end of combat in December 2014."
"If there are no authorities granted by the sovereign state, then there's not room for a follow-on U.S. military mission," Lute said. Hence, the White House has an additional pretext at its disposal for pursuing its "Afghan Good Enough" exit strategy and implementing a complete troop withdrawal.
The Washington Post notes that "some in the administration are pressing for a residual force that could be as small as 2,500..."
Video: Panel discusses Obama's 'unconscionable', "win or lose" timetable for U.S troops in Afghanistan
Video: Gen. John Allen vs. the White House: Is 'Afghan Good Enough', good enough?
This sad notation from Mr. Sanger prompted a panel discussion as to whether the President's decision to send troops to the battlefield with a "win or lose" timetable for withdrawal was "conscionable" or not; if the President wasn't firmly committed to "winning" the conflict, why send the troops into harm's way?
Mr. Sanger went on to say that one of the President's goals in Afghanistan was to keep the city of Kabul from falling. But this "does not necessarily mean that other parts of the country might not fall into Taliban control", he said, adding that "it seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of the country that are significantly under Taliban control."
"Conscionable"? Good grief!
Likewise the New York Times reported at the time that the White House had "lowered the bar on how success is defined in the Afghan war."
The Times reported that the phrase "Afghan Good Enough" had 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."
Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, appearing in an interview earlier this year, was asked about the White House's latest catchphrase, "Afghan Good Enough". Gen. Allen insisted that, contrary to the White House's assertion - "Afghan Good Enough" is not "good enough."
"We're all sacrificing way too much for something that is "Afghan good enough", the General said.
Sadly, the White House disagrees with this sentiment.
In a related development, the AP reported on Tuesday that "the U.S. might leave no American troops in Afghanistan after the end of combat in December 2014."
Administration officials said publicly for the first time Tuesday that the U.S. might leave no American troops in Afghanistan after the end of combat in December 2014, an option that defies the view of Pentagon officials who say thousands of U.S. troops could be needed there to keep a lid on Al Qaeda and to strengthen the Afghan army and police.But aside from the question as to whether the President would prefer a complete troop withdrawal from Afghanistan or not, Obama's top White House military adviser on Afghanistan, Doug Lute, noted on Tuesday that the Afghans will have to give the U.S. certain "authorities" [the troops would have to be granted immunity from prosecution under Afghan laws] if it wants U.S. troops to remain.
"The U.S. does not have an inherent objective of `X' number of troops in Afghanistan," said Ben Rhodes, a White House deputy national security adviser...
Asked in a conference call with reporters whether zero was now an option, Rhodes said, "That would be an option we would consider."
"If there are no authorities granted by the sovereign state, then there's not room for a follow-on U.S. military mission," Lute said. Hence, the White House has an additional pretext at its disposal for pursuing its "Afghan Good Enough" exit strategy and implementing a complete troop withdrawal.
The Washington Post notes that "some in the administration are pressing for a residual force that could be as small as 2,500..."
Those troop levels are significantly lower than what some senior military officials have advocated, arguing that a sudden disengagement could lead to the collapse of a frail state and the onset of a new civil war. The low number also is a far cry from figures in the 10,000-to-30,000 range discussed among NATO allies and some U.S. officials as recently as a year ago...Bottom line: "Afghan good enough" is certainly "good enough"; just ask the President and Chuck Hagel, they can attest to that fact......
Some senior military officials and analysts have pressed for a more robust force, arguing that a hasty disengagement would be reckless and could lead the country’s security forces to crumble. The United States has invested $50 billion in training and equipping the Afghan army and police...
The troop levels under serious consideration [by the Obama administration] range between 2,500 and 6,000, a senior defense official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe confidential deliberations.
A second senior military official involved in Afghan policy said officials at the Pentagon have all but given up hope for a post-2014 force of at least 10,000, which some commanders had deemed the bare minimum...
A force of a few thousand would have limited impact, given Afghanistan’s forbidding topography, resilient insurgency and weak government.
“You’ll end up doing nothing outside of Kabul,” a senior U.S. official involved in Afghanistan said, referring to the 2,500 figure.
With 6,000, the United States would retain the capability to run Bagram Air Base, a key hub outside the capital. But that could leave the United States without a military presence in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban’s heartland and the focus of Obama’s troop surge.
“It would mean walking away from commitments we made in 2009 and 2010,” said retired Lt. Gen. Jim Dubik, who argued... that an international force of some 30,000 troops is needed to keep the Afghan security forces afloat.
Video: Panel discusses Obama's 'unconscionable', "win or lose" timetable for U.S troops in Afghanistan
Video: Gen. John Allen vs. the White House: Is 'Afghan Good Enough', good enough?
Flashback: John Brennan praises Hezbollah - Audio
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet. There are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization... And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process [in Lebanon] in a very legitimate fashion. "
White House counterterrorism adviser and nominee for Director of the CIA, John Brennan
White House counterterrorism adviser and nominee for Director of the CIA, John Brennan
Obama nominates his ideological twin, Chuck Hagel, as Defense Secretary
President Obama made a calculated decision on Monday to nominate former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel as the next U.S. secretary of defense, despite Hagel's controversial record on gay rights and his past statements on the matter.
The President's views on gay marriage have "evolved" back and forth and back and forth - over the years, to suit his political needs. But over the last year or so, Obama finally completed his evolution [his flip-flops, to be precise], and he is now - and will continue to be - a staunch advocate for same-sex marriage. Hence, Obama's slap-in-the-face to the gay community - the appointment of Hagel - will ultimately be forgiven, and the political fallout, no doubt, will be short lived.
A Politically calculated decision, indeed.
Ultimately, when it comes to defense policy, and foreign policy, Hagel and Obama share the same ideologies; they think alike, which is why Obama was unable to ward off the overpowering, and irresistible, urge to appoint his ideological twin to the top defense post, despite the inevitability that such a move would offend the sensitivities of his gay constituents. But of course Obama knows that he will soon be forgiven for this act of betrayal.
Chuck Hagel has consistently voted in opposition to gay rights. He also refused to back legislation that would extend basic employment nondiscrimination protections and the federal hate-crimes law to cover gay Americans. But Mr. Hagel's most memorable moment on the gay rights stage came in a statement he made in 1998, regarding James Homel, a Clinton ambassador nominee and a gay rights advocate:
"[U.S ambassadors] are representing America," said Hagel. "They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job."
Hagel's opposition to gay-rights left the newly reelected President with the following options: He could choose not to nominate Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of the latter's opposition to gay rights. Or, he could tap Hagel for the defense post based on Hagel's merits, such as his refusal to sign onto a letter designating Hezbollah a terrorist group, his opposition to sanctions on Iran, his support of engagement with Iran, and his fierce criticism of Israel.
The decision was a no-brainer for Obama; he couldn't pass up the golden opportunity of tapping a like-minded ally to be the next Secretary of Defense.
The President on Monday also nominated white house counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan as the next director of the CIA.
Mr. Brennan, who once referred to himself as a "strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration", offered the following words of praise for Hezbollah in 2009.
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization... And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process [in Lebanon] in a very legitimate fashion. "
Legitimate fashion, indeed......
Last month, President Obama nominated Sen. John Kerry to be the next Secretary of State.
Mr. Kerry's resume?
In 1971, Mr. Kerry testified against his fellow Vietnam War veterans and accused them of violating the Geneva conventions. In 2005, Kerry accused U.S. troops of "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children.
Likewise, in 2008, then-Presidential candidate Obama accused U.S. troops of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan."
Birds of a feather, indeed.
Conclusion: The President no longer faces reelection, hence he is free to act at will. Which means the transformation and downward spiral of America will continue full speed ahead.........
The President's views on gay marriage have "evolved" back and forth and back and forth - over the years, to suit his political needs. But over the last year or so, Obama finally completed his evolution [his flip-flops, to be precise], and he is now - and will continue to be - a staunch advocate for same-sex marriage. Hence, Obama's slap-in-the-face to the gay community - the appointment of Hagel - will ultimately be forgiven, and the political fallout, no doubt, will be short lived.
A Politically calculated decision, indeed.
Ultimately, when it comes to defense policy, and foreign policy, Hagel and Obama share the same ideologies; they think alike, which is why Obama was unable to ward off the overpowering, and irresistible, urge to appoint his ideological twin to the top defense post, despite the inevitability that such a move would offend the sensitivities of his gay constituents. But of course Obama knows that he will soon be forgiven for this act of betrayal.
Chuck Hagel has consistently voted in opposition to gay rights. He also refused to back legislation that would extend basic employment nondiscrimination protections and the federal hate-crimes law to cover gay Americans. But Mr. Hagel's most memorable moment on the gay rights stage came in a statement he made in 1998, regarding James Homel, a Clinton ambassador nominee and a gay rights advocate:
"[U.S ambassadors] are representing America," said Hagel. "They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job."
Hagel's opposition to gay-rights left the newly reelected President with the following options: He could choose not to nominate Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of the latter's opposition to gay rights. Or, he could tap Hagel for the defense post based on Hagel's merits, such as his refusal to sign onto a letter designating Hezbollah a terrorist group, his opposition to sanctions on Iran, his support of engagement with Iran, and his fierce criticism of Israel.
The decision was a no-brainer for Obama; he couldn't pass up the golden opportunity of tapping a like-minded ally to be the next Secretary of Defense.
The President on Monday also nominated white house counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan as the next director of the CIA.
Mr. Brennan, who once referred to himself as a "strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration", offered the following words of praise for Hezbollah in 2009.
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization... And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process [in Lebanon] in a very legitimate fashion. "
Legitimate fashion, indeed......
Last month, President Obama nominated Sen. John Kerry to be the next Secretary of State.
Mr. Kerry's resume?
In 1971, Mr. Kerry testified against his fellow Vietnam War veterans and accused them of violating the Geneva conventions. In 2005, Kerry accused U.S. troops of "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children.
Likewise, in 2008, then-Presidential candidate Obama accused U.S. troops of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan."
Birds of a feather, indeed.
Conclusion: The President no longer faces reelection, hence he is free to act at will. Which means the transformation and downward spiral of America will continue full speed ahead.........
Thursday, January 3, 2013
UAE snags Muslim Brotherhood spy ring attempting to overthrow, supplant government with Islamist rulership
President Obama's Muslim Brotherhood allies are causing quite a stir in the UAE. Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood's spy operations inside the UAE, and the Brotherhood's ongoing efforts to overthrow the country's current leadership and supplant it with an Islamist rulership, is not sitting too well with the current leaders of the UAE.
From the AFP:
From the AFP:
Mistrustful ties between Islamist-run Egypt and the United Arab Emirates deteriorated further this week with the reported arrest in the UAE of more than 10 Egyptians allegedly spying for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.This would be the perfect time for President Obama to intervene on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, and to call on the current UAE leadership to step down, just as he did in 2011, when he called on Egypt's former President, Hosni Mubarak, to resign. Obama could then help facilitate the transfer of power to the UAE's new Muslim Brotherhood [Islamist] government, thereby achieving his long-sought dreams of fostering a new sense of "hope" in the world and bringing about "real change" all across the globe..........
The report, carried by the UAE newspaper Al-Khaleej, stirred a flurry of diplomacy and other activity as Egypt sought to limit the fall-out, which had the potential to add diplomatic woes to its already dire economic and domestic political problems...
Al-Khaleej, quoting an unidentified source it said was well-informed, reported on Tuesday that UAE security had broken a Brotherhood spy ring that had been collecting secret defense information on the country and illegally sending "large amounts" of money to its parent group in Egypt.
More than 10 people "belonging to the leadership of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood" had been arrested, the newspaper said, adding that the cell had been recruiting expatriate Egyptians in the UAE.
It reported that the cell had held "secret meetings" across the country with Brotherhood members who instructed it on "the means of changing leadership in Arab countries"...
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi came to power in June last year on the back of the uprising in his own country... Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood... took power through its political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party, on a vision of establishing more Islamist rule.
The UAE, for its part, has become especially vigilant for any signs of insurgent sentiment, last year arresting at least 60 Islamist dissidents it claims were plotting against state security...
Dubai police chief Lieutenant General Dahi Khalfan has repeatedly lashed out at the Arab Spring uprisings. After Morsi's election in June, Khalfan implied on his Twitter feed that the Brotherhood might try to sow dissent in the Gulf.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Mainstream media journalists, the 2012 Persons of the Year!
As
Time Magazine proved in 1979, when it chose Iran's revolutionary leader,
Ayatollah Khomeini, as its Person of the Year - 'virtue' is not a necessary
criterion in winning the highly prestigious award.
The Person of the Year award is awarded for extraordinary achievements, and endeavors. Whether those achievements are of the virtuous and noble variety, or the heinous and nefarious genre, is irrelevant.
Hence, I have chosen the Liberal mainstream journalists as the 2012 Persons of the Year for their remarkable achievement in defending, protecting, obfuscating and covering up for President Obama.
The Benghazi cover-up is just one of numerous extraordinary journalistic achievements by the mainstream media on behalf of Obama. A nefarious achievement, no doubt, but a remarkable one nonetheless.
Hence, the mainstream media journalists have risen head and shoulders above all other candidates to be recognized as the 2012 Persons of the Year - and they are clearly deserving of this prestigious, dubious and much belated honor.
Perhaps many of you are wondering how the mainstream media managed to beat out President Obama in snagging the 2012 honor.
"Hasn't the President successfully managed to pull the wool over the eyes of U.S. electorate?" you ask. "Did the mainstream media do a better job than Obama in obfuscating for Obama?" you ask.
A good question, indeed. But it's important to note that without the mainstream media's assistance, Obama - whose rhetorical skills and ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the U.S. electorate are clearly head and shoulders above all previous U.S. Presidents - would most likely not have won the Presidential elections in 2008 and 2012, and the [Illinois] U.S senatorial election in 2004.
Indeed, had it not been for the mainstream media, Obama would still be a Chicago community organizer, clinging bitterly to the outrageous, despicable words of his shining knight in armor, his revered pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright.
Hence, the mainstream media is the clear winner!
Congratulations, MSM!
The Person of the Year award is awarded for extraordinary achievements, and endeavors. Whether those achievements are of the virtuous and noble variety, or the heinous and nefarious genre, is irrelevant.
Hence, I have chosen the Liberal mainstream journalists as the 2012 Persons of the Year for their remarkable achievement in defending, protecting, obfuscating and covering up for President Obama.
The Benghazi cover-up is just one of numerous extraordinary journalistic achievements by the mainstream media on behalf of Obama. A nefarious achievement, no doubt, but a remarkable one nonetheless.
Hence, the mainstream media journalists have risen head and shoulders above all other candidates to be recognized as the 2012 Persons of the Year - and they are clearly deserving of this prestigious, dubious and much belated honor.
Perhaps many of you are wondering how the mainstream media managed to beat out President Obama in snagging the 2012 honor.
"Hasn't the President successfully managed to pull the wool over the eyes of U.S. electorate?" you ask. "Did the mainstream media do a better job than Obama in obfuscating for Obama?" you ask.
A good question, indeed. But it's important to note that without the mainstream media's assistance, Obama - whose rhetorical skills and ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the U.S. electorate are clearly head and shoulders above all previous U.S. Presidents - would most likely not have won the Presidential elections in 2008 and 2012, and the [Illinois] U.S senatorial election in 2004.
Indeed, had it not been for the mainstream media, Obama would still be a Chicago community organizer, clinging bitterly to the outrageous, despicable words of his shining knight in armor, his revered pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright.
Hence, the mainstream media is the clear winner!
Congratulations, MSM!
White House Linked Benghazi to Video 3 Days After CIA & State Dept. Eyewitnesses Confirmed No Protest There
From CNS News:
I also noted in a previous post as follows:
According to a new report by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, personnel working at the CIA "Annex" in Benghazi on Sept. 11 reported on Sept. 15 that there had been no protest in Benghazi that day [when the U.S. consulate was attacked], and State Department security personnel who survived the Benghazi attacks told FBI interviewers on Sept. 15 and Sept. 16 that they, too, had seen no evidence of any protest before the attacks.On September 16, one day after CIA personnel had already reported that there had been no protest at the U.S. consulate prior to the attack, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, appeared on several Sunday TV talk shows, including CBS's Face the Nation, and said that that the attack started out as a spontaneous protest.
At a White House briefing on Sept. 18, [White House Press Secretary Jay] Carney said that there was a protest in Benghazi on Sept. 11 against the anti-Muslim YouTube video and that the attacks there were "sparked" by protests. Obama, appearing on David Letterman’s show that same day, instantly referred to the video... when Letterman asked him what had happened in Benghazi.
Also, an internal State Department email exchange on Sept. 18--the same day Carney made his claim at the White House briefing and Obama made his on Letterman—shows that State Department security officers knew by that date that there had been no protest in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
Video recordings from the diplomatic mission’s closed-circuit television security system, according to the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s report, would also demonstrate that there had been no protest there before the terrorist attacks.
I also noted in a previous post as follows:
Sadly, the Obama administration's storyline as to why no action was taken to save the U.S. diplomats in Benghazi kept changing from day to day; it was nearly impossible to keep track of the administration's dizzying, ever-changing, vacillating narrative without getting a severe headache.I also noted some additional inconsistencies, and prevarications, from Panetta and Company.
Suffice it to say that Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, admitted to reporters, during a press briefing in October, that the U.S. military had the resources in the region to rescue the diplomats.
"We quickly responded... in terms of deploying forces to the region," Panetta said. "We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that."
"But", Panetta said, "you don't deploy forces into harm's way... without having some real-time information about what's taking place.[They didn't have real time information, my foot!] And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
But shortly after the aforementioned briefing, the storyline changed. According to the revised version, the military didn't have the resources nearby, hence the rescue teams could not reach Benghazi in time to save the lives of the U.S. diplomats...
The administration's narative received a few additional facelifts, and twists, over the next several weeks; I'm still waiting for the final cut.
Obama blames congress for racking up the deficit - press briefing - fiscal cliff
Speaking at a White House press briefing on Tuesday - shortly after the House voted to approve a Senate-backed deal aimed at averting the so-called 'fiscal cliff' - President Obama blamed congress for the huge deficit, and "the bills that THEY'VE racked up."
Apparently, the President bears no responsibility for the debt that he has created; it's congress' fault.
Referencing last year's debt ceiling negotiations, the President stated firmly: "I will not have another debate [this year] with this Congress over whether or not THEY should pay the bills that THEY'VE already racked up through the laws that THEY passed."
Likewise, during a press conference in 2011, Obama stated: "These are bills that CONGRESS ran up... I think the American people have to understand this: This is not a situation where congress is going to say, 'Okay, we won't buy this car or we won't take this vacation.' They took the vacation, they bought the car. And now, they are saying 'maybe we don't have to pay."
Ultimately, the President bears no responsibility for the debt that he has created; "someone else made that happen!"
Apparently, the President bears no responsibility for the debt that he has created; it's congress' fault.
Referencing last year's debt ceiling negotiations, the President stated firmly: "I will not have another debate [this year] with this Congress over whether or not THEY should pay the bills that THEY'VE already racked up through the laws that THEY passed."
Likewise, during a press conference in 2011, Obama stated: "These are bills that CONGRESS ran up... I think the American people have to understand this: This is not a situation where congress is going to say, 'Okay, we won't buy this car or we won't take this vacation.' They took the vacation, they bought the car. And now, they are saying 'maybe we don't have to pay."
Ultimately, the President bears no responsibility for the debt that he has created; "someone else made that happen!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)