Michelle Obama Q & A - Conservative tweeter confused?

From the USA Today:

First lady Michelle Obama knows how to use Twitter to promote her causes, but so do her husband's critics and opponents.

Live by social media, slapped by social media. First lady Michelle Obama took to Twitter today for a Q&A on her anti-obesity campaign, but some critics couldn't resist the chance to try to hijack the forum to mock her...

Since 2009, Mrs. O has effectively used social media, especially Twitter, to promote her causes and reach people she might otherwise miss. But her husband's opponents know how to use social media, too, to promote their causes and to bash the president through the first lady.

"Would we save enough money to reopen WH tours if we shut down your Let's Move tour?," tweeted right-wing radio pundit Laura Ingraham, alluding to the sequester budget cuts the administration cited to shut down White House tours starting this week.

Some tweeters were confused about, or deliberately distorting, Mrs. Obama's Let's Move campaign, which seeks to encourage healthy eating and more exercise for everyone but especially kids. It's voluntary, not mandatory, as most first-lady projects are.

"What makes you think that you are qualified to dictate MY CHILDREN'S diet, or anything else concerning them, than I am?," scoffed Matt Harrison, self-described "Uncompromising Conservative."

The USA Today asserts that tweeters like Matt Harrison are "confused" because they assume Michelle Obama's Let's Move Campign is "mandatory," when it is really "voluntary."

Well, that's a disingenuous assertion.

From the U.S government's Let's Move.Gov website:

Since we launched Let’s Move! a year ago, we’ve been hard at work, talking to educators, parents, and kids... We’ve done it all to achieve one big goal – to end the epidemic of childhood obesity in a generation... And that’s why we made passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act a cornerstone of our work during the first year of Let’s Move

From Wikipedia:

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, [otherwise known as The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act]... sets new nutrition standards for schools, and allocates $4.5 billion dollars for their implementation. The new nutrition standards have been a point initiative of First Lady Michelle Obama in her fight against childhood obesity as part of her Let's Move! initiative.

The $4.5 billion, tax payer-funded legislation was promoted by Michelle Obama as part of her Let's Move initiative. The bill is mandatory, not voluntary.

Incidentally, the bill was funded in part by siphoning off $2.2 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the federal food stamp program. Heh...

Moreover, many parents complain that their children are coming home from school hungry as a result of the new nutritional mandate initiated by Michelle Obama.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act?  Heh.....

Conclusion: Matt Harrison is not confused at all; he's clearheaded and he's right!

P.S. Here's a few more tweets that were tweeted to Michelle Obama during here Q & A:

"Where in the constitution does its state "the FLOTUS shall tell kids what to eat"? Just wondering...."

"Why do you think the media has spent more time reporting on your bangs than they have on #Benghazi?"

"What's the best vacation destination to escape to when you really feel like spending my tax dollars in style?"......

Afghanistan: Two U.S. soldiers killed, at least ten wounded in insider attack; second insider attack in 4 days

Two American soldiers were killed, and at least ten wounded when an Afghan police officer opened fire on them with a truck-mounted machine gun after a training-related meeting between coalition and Afghan forces at a military base in the Jalrez district of Wardak province in Afghanistan.

The incident was the second insider attack in less than a week. On Friday a U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. soldiers were wounded when three men in Afghan uniforms rammed an Afghan military vehicle through a checkpoint, forced their way into a U.S. base and opened fire on their victims.

The latest incidents in a slew of Green on Blue attacks raises questions about the partnership between U.S. troops and the Afghan forces they are trying to train to take over responsibility for the country's security after Obama's dash to the exit is completed and U.S. forces have departed.

Related Posts: Afghanistan: Insider attack kills one American, wounds four; Suicide bombers kill Nineteen Afghans, including eight children

Taliban cancels Hagel, Karzai press conference

Taliban cancels Hagel, Karzai press conference

President Obama asserted in May of 2012 that the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan had been broken, contradicting an assessment made at the time by the heads of House and Senate Intelligence committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers, who, upon returning from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, stated that the Taliban were even stronger than they had been before the President announced his 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan in December of 2009 [while simultaneously announcing - and telegraphing - to the Taliban - his timetable for withdrawal]. The President's assertion about the Taliban's broken momentum also ran contrary to media reports which noted an increase in violence across the country.

U.S. officials said Sunday that a joint press conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, scheduled for Sunday afternoon at the presidential palace in Kabul, had been cancelled because of a security threat - although the two men still planned to meet later in the day.

The cancellation came a day after a suicide bomber killed nine people outside the Afghan Defense Ministry in central Kabul; the Taliban took credit for the bombing.

Hagel, who was reportedly in a safe location meeting with Afghan officials at the time of the explosion, later told reporters he heard the explosion from afar but wasn't sure what it was.

Nevertheless, U.S. officials refused to provide details on the security concerns that led to the cancellation of Sunday's joint press conference [and perhaps there might have been other reasons that led to the cancellation]. However, the attack on the Afghan Defense Ministry was likely the cause for those security concerns. Which leads me to believe that Obama's assertion about the Taliban is spot-on! For ultimately the Taliban's ability to bring about the cancellation of the Hagel/Karzai press conference at the presidential palace in Kabul can only mean one thing: "We broke the Taliban's momentum!"

Afghanistan: Insider attack kills one American, wounds four; Suicide bombers kill Nineteen Afghans, including eight children

A U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. soldiers were wounded in Afghanistan on Friday in an apparent insider attack, shortly before U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrived on his first visit to the country.

Three men in Afghan uniforms, driving an Afghan security force vehicle, forced their way into a U.S. base and opened fire on their victims.

Investigators said they were nearly certain it was an insider attack because the gunmen came from the Afghan side of the joint U.S.-Afghan base and rammed an Afghan military vehicle through a checkpoint dividing the base before they leaped out of the vehicle and gunned down their victims.

Additionally, on Saturday, two separate suicide attacks - one, on the Afghan Defense Ministry in Kabul, and one, near the city of Khost - left nineteen Afghans dead, including eight children.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on the Afghan Defense Ministry in Kabul, and said the attack was a message to Mr. Hagel that they have the capability to strike the capital city - even while he was there. However, the Taliban said it did not carry out the previous day's attack on the joint U.S.-Afghan base, which, as mentioned earlier, appears to have been an insider attack. Thus far, the Taliban have not claimed responsibility for the attack near Khost.

As the U.S. military continues to heed President Obama's directive to withdraw from Afghanistan and hand over security to the Afghan forces, the steady, ongoing stream of violence continues to raise the question as to whether the Afghan forces are capable of securing the country after Obama completes his bolting exit from Afghanistan.

Graham criticizes Obama for "Sneaking" Abu Ghaith into the U.S., "under the nose of Congress"

Republican lawmakers sharply criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for "sneaking" Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a senior Al Qaeda leader, into the United States [New York] to stand trial in federal court instead of sending him to Guantanamo Bay.

Abu Ghaith was recently apprehended in Jordan and stealthily transported to the U.S. without the knowledge of congress. He served as a spokesman for Al-Qaida, and, prior to September 11, 2001, he was tasked with signing up new Al Qaeda members to train in Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan.

During a joint press conference with Sen. Kelly Ayotte on Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham asserted that, “We are setting a new precedent that will come back to bite us. It's clear to me they [Obama & Company] snuck him in... under the nose of Congress... We believe the administration's decision here to bring this person to New York City... without letting Congress know is a very bad precedent to set... The Congress has tried to tell the administration that when it comes to people like this we want them to go to Gitmo to be held for interrogation purposes. So we're putting the administration on notice... We think that sneaking this guy into the country, clearly going around the intent of Congress when it comes to enemy combatants, will be challenged."

Echoing Graham's sentiment, Sen. Ayotte argued that because the senior terrorist was transported to New York, he will now receive the same rights as a U.S. citizen, including Miranda rights, making it virtually impossible to properly interrogate him and glean the vital information that he possesses.

"When we find somebody like this, this close to bin Laden and the senior al-Qaida leadership," said Ayotte, "the last thing in the world we want to do, in my opinion, is put them in civilian court. This man should be in Guantanamo Bay... If you are that close to bin Laden, we want to develop all the information that person has."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers stated: “I am very concerned, just as I was in the past, about taking an al-Qaida member off the battlefield in foreign soil and Mirandizing them and bringing them back to the United States."

Sending Abu Ghaith to Guantanamo Bay “makes the most logical sense”, he said.

The U.S has gotten "that facility right and in the right positioning to handle that kind of high-risk, high-threat al-Qaida prisoner," he added.

But President Obama is seeking to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, hence, he was left with no other choice but to sneak the senior Al Qaeda leader into New York City and afford him all the rights of a U.S. citizen.

Liberal media pundits will undoubtedly hail Obama's decision [stealthy maneuver] to bypass congress and secretly slip Abu Ghaith into New York City as a bold act of "unilateralism"!

How right they are! Obama is the ultimate unilateralist!

Obama wines and dines Republicans; Will they veer off the right lane?

Sen. John McCain talks on his cell phone Wednesday evening after President Obama finished wining and dining a group of Republican Senators [that included Sen. McCain] at the Jefferson Hotel near the White House.

President Obama's aversion to reaching out to lawmakers and communicating with members of congress - Republicans and Democrats alike - is well-known. However, with the President's poll numbers sinking, as a result of his ridiculous brainchild, namely, his sequestration mandate - and his refusal to rescind the mandate - he apparently realizes he has little choice but to get off his high horse and meet with the common people and ordinary folk in congress.

Hence, Mr. Obama arranged a group dinner with Republican lawmakers on Wednesday at the Jefferson Hotel, a few blocks from the White House, where they discussed a number of subjects, including fiscal issues.

The dinner guests included Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Tom Coburn, among others.

"[The President's] never spent anytime reaching out." said Coburn about Obama's outreach in recent days. "The question is, is it starting to change because there is bad poll numbers or is it because he really decided he's going to lead and solve some of the problems of the country?"

Question number two: Will the food and drink from Wednesday's feast get the better of these Republicans and cause them to veer off the right lane?

Benghazi Update: Obfuscations & Lies

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz says the State Department still refuses to provide the House Oversight Committee and the National Security Subcommittee with the names of the Americans who survived the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

Committee members would like to interview the survivors to find out exactly what happened on the night of the attacks, but the White House refuses to disclose the names of the survivors to the committee.

"The State Dept. will not provide us the information." Chaffetz said. "There were more than a dozen [survivors]. Some were interviewed in Libya, some were interviewed in Germany the night after the attack. We know that there have been people at the Bethesda Hospital; Secretary Kerry has visited those people. They won't even tell us their names!"

Chaffetz also said that the committee had sent a letter to the Accountability Review Board requesting them to testify before congress, but the Review Board - the investigative panel which Hillary Clinton appointed to do a whitewash job and absolve the administration of any blame - turned down the committee's request.

In a related development: The Obama administration, in recent days, handed over some documents pertaining to the Benghazi attacks after Congressional Republicans threatened to withhold confirmation of CIA director nominee John Brennan unless the White House agreed to disclose additional information about the attacks.

CBS' Sharyl Attkisson reported on Monday:

Regarding the [Obama adminstration's] talking points [on Benghazi]: one source who reviewed the documents said removal of the word "al Qaeda" from the talking points was initiated, at least in part, by one of the "press shops." The source said press officers from the Defense Intelligence agency, the White House and the FBI were "looped in" from the start and that some of them expressed concerns in writing that the media would ask follow up questions if certain words or phrases were used...

The documents indicated numerous other changes were made to the talking points, including removal of certain references to an "attack."

The source who reviewed the documents also flagged several emails prior to the Benghazi attacks from officials in Libya to Washington, D.C., that supposedly specifically warned of an imminent attack within days of the Benghazi consulate.

In other words, despite claims from the Obama administration - the President, Leon Panetta and the rest of the gang - that there were no signs of an imminent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi prior to actual attack, there were indeed specific warnings of an imminent attack on the consulate. Likewise, Attkisson noted via twitter that, "An official familiar with the docs says there were warnings from Libya sent to Washington in the days leading up to the attack that specifically warned of an imminent attack on the US compound in Benghazi."

Additionally, the source says "most if not all contact" between officials in Libya and Washington, D.C., once the attacks began reference al Qaeda, al Qaeda-affiliated cells or both as being the suspected instigator from the very start...

"It's amazing that anyone would question who was behind the attack and keep the idea of the demonstration going for weeks," said the source.

Obama Borrowed Nearly 6x as Much in February as Sequester Cuts All Year

The President's "Sequester" mandate, if left intact, will weaken the military and place an unnecessary strain on the U.S. economy. The automatic, arbitrary budget cuts - which Obama devised, and refused to rescind - are not helpful, to say the least.

Nevertheless, CNS News notes that, "During the month of February--as President Barack Obama was warning Americans they would see dramatic effects in their lives if “sequestration” of some planned federal spending kicked in--the federal government’s debt climbed by $253.5 billion."

That one-month increase in the debt was nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in spending cuts the Congressional Budget Office estimates will take place in all of fiscal 2013 as a result of sequestration...

Bottom line: In February alone, the government borrowed nearly 6 times as much as it intends to save with the sequester over the rest of the fiscal year.

Just because the President engages in outrageous spending sprees, thereby causing the national debt to climb to unprecedented levels, it doesn't make the pain of sequestration, and arbitrary budget cuts, any easier to bear, in my opinion. I don't take sequestration lightly. Nevertheless, the fact that the national debt, in February, climbed nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in sequestration spending cuts that will take place in all of 2013, underscores just how much debt Obama is creating with his reckless and profligate spending sprees.

Bob Schieffer to McCain & Graham: Obama phoning Republicans is "news"; Chris Matthews disagrees

During an interview with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on Sunday, CBS News anchor, Bob Schieffer, asked the two ranking Republican congressmen if they have recently received any phone calls from President Obama.

"Have you all been called by the President? We hear from his people this morning that, yes, he is starting to call Republicans and I guess that's kind of the state of where we are when it's news that we hear the President has called members of the other party."

Schieffer is partially correct: The country is indeed in a sad, sad state when it elects a President who refuses to communicate with members of the 'other party'. However, as Chris Matthews once lamented, Obama refuses to call members of his OWN party too [see the video below]...... Hence, Schieffer is indeed correct, but only partially correct.........

Personal income plummeted, largest one-month drop in 20 years, Disposable income suffers largest one-month decline since 1959 when monthly records began

Personal income growth plummeted to 3.6% in January, the largest one-month drop in 20 years, the Commerce Department said Friday. Disposable income - the money left over after taxes - dropped 4% after adjusting for inflation, the biggest plunge since monthly records began in 1959, Bloomberg News reported. Consumer spending rose just a measly 0.2%, but analysts say that most of those expenditures went toward higher heating bills and filling up the gas tank.

There was a decline in spending, in the month of January, on big-ticket items and durable goods, like cars, appliances, furniture and electronics. Spending on clothing, food and various other non-durable goods, also fell in January.