Three NATO military personnel, including one American, were killed in a roadside car bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan on Friday. At least six civilians also died in the explosion which occurred while a convoy of armored vehicles was driving along a highway near Camp Phoenix, an American military base in Kabul. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.
Over the last week and half, 13 NATO troops have been killed in Afghanistan.
The attack on Friday comes just two days after US diplomats and embassy staffers in the US embassy in Kabul were sent rushing to bomb shelters when rockets struck the US embassy compound.
The AP noted on Wednesday that "Afghan insurgents have increased attacks in recent months, intensifying a campaign to regain territory as foreign forces draw down ahead of full withdrawal at the end of 2014."
Friday, December 27, 2013
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Two rockets hit US Embassy in Kabul on Christmas Day, as attacks continue to increase ahead of Obama's 2014 timetable
From NBC News:
ABC News reported on the embassy attack:
Two rockets hit the U.S. Embassy compound in Afghanistan [on Christmas] just before dawn Wednesday, an embassy spokesperson said. A source said the rockets did not cause any damage to the embassy, but rather impacted the ground within the compound perimeter.Additionally, the AP reported:
A bicycle bomb was remotely detonated in front of a restaurant... 60 kilometers east of Kabul, killing six people and wounding 13.BNO News reported that the rocket attack on the US embassy "was followed by a tip that led Afghan police officers to an improvised explosive device (IED) in the vicinity of the embassy compound... The device exploded at around 7:30 a.m. local time while officers were attempting to defuse it, seriously injuring four of them."
Two of the killed were policemen and four were civilians... The attack also wounded 13 civilians, including several children.
Earlier in the day, a roadside bombing in eastern Kabul wounded three Afghan policemen...
Afghan insurgents have increased attacks in recent months, intensifying a campaign to regain territory as foreign forces draw down ahead of full withdrawal at the end of 2014.
ABC News reported on the embassy attack:
The explosions sent staff at the embassy – who live on the same compound during their off-hours – scurrying to bomb shelters for cover.The AFP reported:
The mortar rockets sent US diplomats rushing for shelter as the heavily-fortified embassy in the city center sounded its emergency sirens and loudspeakers broadcast a "duck and cover" alarm warning...
Previous Taliban mortar attacks on Kabul have lacked accuracy, and the Christmas Day attacks will raise concerns that the militants have improved their ability to launch and direct the rockets.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Obama staffers, Secret Service spending quality Christmas time with Obama, away from their families
A Time magazine article in 2009 noted that, during his Presidency, Ronald Reagan "remained in Washington over Christmas — reportedly so members of the Secret Service could be near their families."
Likewise, the GOP-USA website noted last year: "Although President Reagan could have spent his White House Christmases with family at his beloved ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif., he instead stayed in Washington, D.C. This way, his sacrifice allowed Secret Service agents and other aides to spend Christmas at home with their families. He was a thoughtful person."
The GOP website made no mention of President Obama, and his luxurious holiday getaways, but others have pointed out that - unlike the thoughtful Ronald Reagan - Obama spends his Christmas holidays in Hawaii, far from Washington DC. Consequently, the secret service, and other members of the White House staff, bid farewell to their families and spend the holiday with Mr. Obama, tending to his every need.
And, in the holiday spirit of giving, taxpayers gift Mr. Obama with their hard-earned money to pay for the extra security detail that protects him during his golfing excursions and his basketball, beach and shave ice outings etc. The taxpayers also pay for various other expenditures of Obama's luxurious holiday get-aways.
And although the Secret Service, and the rest of the White House staffers, may not be spending Christmas with their families, they do get to spend quality holiday time with Obama! And that experience, no doubt, far surpasses all other forms of enjoyment, including the most memorable and intimate family get-togethers.
To top it all off, American taxpayers have been given the unique privilege to partake in this incredible and lavish experience, and to share in this most extravagant, enormous and grand expenditure!
It can't possibly get any better than that!
Likewise, the GOP-USA website noted last year: "Although President Reagan could have spent his White House Christmases with family at his beloved ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif., he instead stayed in Washington, D.C. This way, his sacrifice allowed Secret Service agents and other aides to spend Christmas at home with their families. He was a thoughtful person."
The GOP website made no mention of President Obama, and his luxurious holiday getaways, but others have pointed out that - unlike the thoughtful Ronald Reagan - Obama spends his Christmas holidays in Hawaii, far from Washington DC. Consequently, the secret service, and other members of the White House staff, bid farewell to their families and spend the holiday with Mr. Obama, tending to his every need.
And, in the holiday spirit of giving, taxpayers gift Mr. Obama with their hard-earned money to pay for the extra security detail that protects him during his golfing excursions and his basketball, beach and shave ice outings etc. The taxpayers also pay for various other expenditures of Obama's luxurious holiday get-aways.
And although the Secret Service, and the rest of the White House staffers, may not be spending Christmas with their families, they do get to spend quality holiday time with Obama! And that experience, no doubt, far surpasses all other forms of enjoyment, including the most memorable and intimate family get-togethers.
To top it all off, American taxpayers have been given the unique privilege to partake in this incredible and lavish experience, and to share in this most extravagant, enormous and grand expenditure!
It can't possibly get any better than that!
Monday, December 23, 2013
Poll: Support for Obamacare reaches new low
Support for Obamacare has reached a new low, according to a new CNN/ORC poll released on Monday.
62% of the CNN poll respondents say they are opposed to Obamacare, while only 35% say they are in favor of the new law.
Every CNN/ORC poll, from the middle of March of 2010, when Obamacare was about to be signed into law, and when the polls were first taken, until now, revealed that a significant majority of Americans are opposed to the new law. But 62% is a new high for the CNN poll. And, it bears mentioning that CNN is a Liberal news organization which tries its utmost to cast the best possible light on President Obama.
62% of the CNN poll respondents say they are opposed to Obamacare, while only 35% say they are in favor of the new law.
Every CNN/ORC poll, from the middle of March of 2010, when Obamacare was about to be signed into law, and when the polls were first taken, until now, revealed that a significant majority of Americans are opposed to the new law. But 62% is a new high for the CNN poll. And, it bears mentioning that CNN is a Liberal news organization which tries its utmost to cast the best possible light on President Obama.
Obama signs up for Obamacare, excludes family, and manages to avoid security-flawed, glitched website
President Obama over the weekend enrolled in one of the new health insurance exchanges created by Obamacare, a White House aide said Monday.
The White House aide added that, “The act of the president signing up for insurance coverage through the DC exchange is symbolic since the president's health care will continue to be provided by the military... The President selected a bronze plan.”
The White House aide seemed to suggest that the President's decision to choose the bronze plan, one of the cheapest plans available, was due to the fact that the President's enrollment was only symbolic, since he and his family already receive their insurance coverage through the military.
Incidentally, countless Americans, in the individual insurance market, have been dropped from their insurance plans and forced to purchase more expensive plans as a result of Obamacare, but, luckily for Mr. Obama, he was able to choose the plan that he liked... [The government has since revised its rules to let insurance companies, in the individual market, offer the original plans for one more year. After the year is up..., knows.]
The President, however, excluded the First Lady and his daughters from the symbolic sign-up and did not enroll them in the new plan, the White House said.
Apparently, when it comes to symbolic gestures, Obama prefers to make small, token, and less expensive gestures that involve only himself - hence the decision to exclude his family from the insurance exchange.
The President was also spared the pain and agony of having to sign up online via the technically-glitched, security-flawed Obamacare and exchange websites. Instead of enrolling online, a White House staffer went down to the DC exchange and signed up for Obama. A White House official offered the following explanation:
"Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up. As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”
The end result is that Obama's personal information still remains safe and secure, which is more than I can say for the thousands of Americans who sign up online.
Ultimately, all of the above just proves one thing: What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander........
The White House aide added that, “The act of the president signing up for insurance coverage through the DC exchange is symbolic since the president's health care will continue to be provided by the military... The President selected a bronze plan.”
The White House aide seemed to suggest that the President's decision to choose the bronze plan, one of the cheapest plans available, was due to the fact that the President's enrollment was only symbolic, since he and his family already receive their insurance coverage through the military.
Incidentally, countless Americans, in the individual insurance market, have been dropped from their insurance plans and forced to purchase more expensive plans as a result of Obamacare, but, luckily for Mr. Obama, he was able to choose the plan that he liked... [The government has since revised its rules to let insurance companies, in the individual market, offer the original plans for one more year. After the year is up..., knows.]
The President, however, excluded the First Lady and his daughters from the symbolic sign-up and did not enroll them in the new plan, the White House said.
Apparently, when it comes to symbolic gestures, Obama prefers to make small, token, and less expensive gestures that involve only himself - hence the decision to exclude his family from the insurance exchange.
The President was also spared the pain and agony of having to sign up online via the technically-glitched, security-flawed Obamacare and exchange websites. Instead of enrolling online, a White House staffer went down to the DC exchange and signed up for Obama. A White House official offered the following explanation:
"Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up. As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”
The end result is that Obama's personal information still remains safe and secure, which is more than I can say for the thousands of Americans who sign up online.
Ultimately, all of the above just proves one thing: What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander........
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Obama heads to Hawaii Golf course after being updated on failed attempt to evacuate endangered US citizens in South Sudan
The White House released a statement on Saturday reassuring the American people that President Obama had been briefed about the attack on four US service members who tried unsuccessfully to evacuate American citizens in Bor, South Sudan. The President received a briefing on Friday evening, shortly after he arrived in Hawaii for his holiday vacation. And, prior to his golf outing on Saturday morning, he received some additional updates.
"Last night, upon landing in Hawaii, President Obama was updated on Air Force One on the status of the four American service members who were wounded attempting to evacuate American citizens in Bor, South Sudan," the White House statement read. "He directed his national security team to ensure the safety of our military personnel, and to continue to work with the United Nations to evacuate our citizens from Bor.... The President was briefed on the status of our military personnel, and the safety of our citizens in Bor and U.S. personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Juba."
Apparently satisfied that he had addressed the dire situation facing U.S. personnel in Bor, South Sudan, and that he had ordered his administration to ensure their safety, the President headed out to the Golf course Saturday morning after receiving some additional updates.
"Obama, in white golf shirt, hat and sunglasses, was all smiles as he drove past reporters accompanying him to the coastal golf course," the AP reported.
"Last year, Obama had to temporarily abandon his vacation to fly home amid a congressional standoff over the so-called fiscal cliff," the AP noted. "The year before, a showdown over payroll tax cuts forced him to delay the start of his Hawaii hiatus. In 2010, it was congressional wrangling over repeal of the ban on gays in the military and other issues that delayed the trip. And in 2009, Senate deliberations over Obama's signature health care law meant that Honolulu had to wait another few days."
But apparently, Mr. Obama has no plans to return to Washington DC in the midst of his current Hawaii vacation just so he can properly deal with the dire security threat facing U.S personnel in South Sudan. Trivial matters can wait till after the vacation has ended.
"Throughout his vacation," the AP notes, "Obama will continue to get regular briefings from advisers traveling with him, White House officials said. Obama and his supporters were hoping those routine updates wouldn't interfere with regular rounds of golf and family outings for shave ice, the Hawaii version of a snow cone."
Judging from the President's actions, or his lack of action, on the evening of September 11, 2012, when terrorists in Benghazi killed four Americans, it is safe to assume that Obama's Hawaii golf excursions and his family outings for shave ice will resume without interference.
Obama's first day of vacation is proof of that.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Obama, Washington Post's Liar of the Year!
President Obama has uttered a myriad of lies over the course of his political career. But three lies, among Obama's seemingly endless stream of lies, have the prestigious honor of being among the Washington Post's top ten lies of 2013.
David Letterman might want to use this for his Top Ten list. Heh......
The three Obama lies on the Washington Post's Top Ten list:
1) “If you like your health-care plan [and doctor], you can keep it.”
2) “The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
3) “The Capitol Hill janitors just got a pay cut.”
In lie number 3, President Obama claimed that the janitors working on Capital Hill were facing a pay cut as a result of the sequester. [The sequester, incidentally, was a ridiculous idea crafted by the White House.]
"Starting tomorrow, everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol..., [are] going to have less pay!" Obama exclaimed in March of this year. "The janitors... just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that! That’s real!"
However, Obama's statement was false. "Capitol Hill administrative officials even issued a statement saying the president’s remarks were 'not true' ", the Washington Post writes. "Then the White House tried to argue that janitors at least faced a loss of overtime. That was not correct either. The episode was emblematic of the administration’s sequester rhetoric."
In truth, the President has uttered so many lies this year and over the course of his political career, that it seems a bit humorous to choose just 3 lies from 2013 and thereby absolve him of the myriad of other lies he has made. Nevertheless, the question arises whether this most deserving honor from the Washington Post might influence Time Magazine to select Barack Obama as its Person of the Year in 2013.
Time Magazine chose Obama as its Person of the Year in 2012 and 2008. And, as I noted last year, "virtue" is not necessarily the deciding factor used by the magazine to choose its person of the year, as evidenced by the slew of heinous individuals who have been bestowed with this honor in the past, including the late Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.
Hence, Obama's unique ability to lie over and over again without even batting an eyelash might very well qualify him to be Time Magazine's Person of the Year for the third time in six years. Obama is clearly deserving of the award; it behooves the editors of the magazine to join their counterparts over at the Washington Post, and to honor the Liar of the Year as their Person of the Year once again!
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Obama postponed Obamacare, EPA rules till after 2012 election
From the Washington Post:
The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 2012 election, according to documents and interviews with current and former administration officials.In September of 2011, former Vice President Al Gore excoriated Mr. Obama when the latter ordered the EPA to postpone certain environmental regulations. Mr. Gore - who previously praised Obama on environmental issues - accused the President of bowing "to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new clean air standards." But Mr. Obama countered that claim by insisting that he was simply putting the regulations on hold in order to create jobs. However, it has now been confirmed by current and former administration officials that President Obama was lying at the time, and that Al Gore's assessment was off the mark. For ultimately Obama's true intention for postponing the regulations was to ensure that the regulations would not be issued before voters went to the polls.
Some agency officials were instructed to hold off submitting proposals to the White House for up to a year to ensure that they would not be issued before voters went to the polls, the current and former officials said.
The delays meant that rules were postponed or never issued. The stalled regulations included crucial elements of the Affordable Care Act, what bodies of water deserved federal protection, pollution controls for industrial boilers and limits on dangerous silica exposure in the workplace.
The Obama administration has repeatedly said that any delays until after the election were coincidental and that such decisions were made without regard to politics. But seven current and former administration officials told The Washington Post that the motives behind many of the delays were clearly political, as Obama’s top aides focused on avoiding controversy before his reelection...
Those findings are bolstered by a new report from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent agency that advises the federal government on regulatory issues. The report is based on anonymous interviews with more than a dozen senior agency officials who worked with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which oversees the implementation of federal rules.
The report said internal reviews of proposed regulatory changes “took longer in 2011 and 2012 because of concerns about the agencies issuing costly or controversial rules prior to the November 2012 election.”...
Ronald White, who directs regulatory policy at the advocacy group Center for Effective Government, said the “overt manipulation of the regulatory review process by a small White House office” raises questions about how the government writes regulations...
The recent decision to bring on Democratic strategist John Podesta as a senior White House adviser is likely to accelerate the number of new rules and executive orders [now that President Obama is safely ensconced in his second term], given Podesta’s long-standing support for using executive action to achieve the president’s goals despite congressional opposition....
Monday, December 9, 2013
Podesta portfolio to include executive actions, Heh
From the Politico:
Obama is hoping that John Podesta, the man who helped the Clinton administration extract itself from various quagmires, and scandals - including the Whitewater and Travelgate scandals - can offer him the same kind of assistance.
Politico also noted that "Podesta's portfolio will include Obamacare and executive actions."
'Executive actions' is right up Podesta's alley: While serving as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Podesta advised Bill Clinton to bypass congress through the abusive and inordinate use of executive orders. In 2010, Podesta asserted that Obama should follow Clinton's path and also use his executive powers to circumvent congress. And indeed, President Obama has relied heavily on executive actions to bypass congress and the law.
Obama and Podesta, what a lovely pair!
John Podesta, a Democratic Party heavyweight and former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, has agreed to serve as a counselor to President Barack Obama, according to officials familiar with the move.With his approval ratings at an all-time low, and his administration awash in a slew of scandals, and his signature health care law beset with all kinds of problems, President Obama is desperately seeking help.
Podesta will return to the White House as Obama struggles to regain his credibility after the troubled rollout of HealthCare.gov. The president has already recalled Phil Schiliro, a former legislative affairs director, to serve as the White House’s point person on Obamacare policy...
Podesta's portfolio will include Obamacare and executive actions — a concession that the White House expects Obama's legislative agenda to continue to get nowhere in Congress, according to one source familiar with the plans.
Podesta's office space hasn't yet been assigned, but he will work out of the West Wing, the source said.
Obama is hoping that John Podesta, the man who helped the Clinton administration extract itself from various quagmires, and scandals - including the Whitewater and Travelgate scandals - can offer him the same kind of assistance.
Politico also noted that "Podesta's portfolio will include Obamacare and executive actions."
'Executive actions' is right up Podesta's alley: While serving as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Podesta advised Bill Clinton to bypass congress through the abusive and inordinate use of executive orders. In 2010, Podesta asserted that Obama should follow Clinton's path and also use his executive powers to circumvent congress. And indeed, President Obama has relied heavily on executive actions to bypass congress and the law.
Obama and Podesta, what a lovely pair!
Obamacare: Obama administration contradicting itself on paper applications, in typical fashion
From the AP:
Bataille previously served as Deputy Director of Communications for Vice President Al Gore and the Gore 2000 Presidential Campaign. According to the CMS website, Bataille "coordinated proactive outreach of key Gore messages." Perhaps her aversion to telling the inconvenient truth is something she picked up while serving under Gore.
Bataille also served as Assistant Press Secretary at the White House during the Clinton administration, and she worked in the office of Joe Biden when he was still a US Senator, which might also explain her mendacity. However, working with Obama these past two and a half years certainly helped Bataille consummate and perfect the art of fibbing.
According to the CMS website, Julie Bataille is also an accredited member of the Public Relations Society of America. Hmmm, prevarication might be an essential part of Public Relations, but the inconvenient truth is Bataille still needs to improve on her PR work just a tad bit.....
Federal health officials, after encouraging alternate sign-up methods amid the fumbled rollout of their online insurance website, began quietly urging counselors around the country this week to stop using paper applications to enroll people in health insurance because of concerns those applications would not be processed in time.Julie Bataille was hired in 2011 to be the spokeswoman for CMS, the federal agency tasked with developing and operating the HealthCare.gov website. And, apparently, she shares a common attribute with her boss over at the White House: President Obama and Julie Bataille both have a penchant for being untruthful.
Interviews with enrollment counselors, insurance brokers and a government official who works with navigators in Illinois reveal the latest change in direction by the Obama administration, which had been encouraging paper applications and other means because of all the problems with the federal website. Consumers must sign up for insurance under the federal health overhaul by Dec. 23 in order for coverage to start in January...
Federal health officials also discussed the issue during a conference call Wednesday with navigators and certified counselors in several states.
"They've said do not use paper applications because they won't be able to process them anywhere near in time," said John Foley, attorney and certified counselor for Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, who was on the call.
That contradicts what federal health officials told reporters during a national media call this week, during which they said there were no problems with paper applications.
"There is still time to do paper applications," Julie Bataille, communications director for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters on the call Wednesday.
A CMS spokesman declined to comment directly on the issue Friday when asked whether they discouraged navigators from using paper applications...
In early November, President Barack Obama himself encouraged paper applications as one of several alternatives to the federal website.
"I just want to remind everybody that they can still apply for coverage by phone, by mail, in person," Obama said on Nov. 4 in remarks to Affordable Care Act supporters at a Washington hotel.
The paper application problem comes as insurance agents and brokers are dealing with a massive backlog of applications that they can't process because of problems with the federal website, including incomplete enrollment files sent electronically to insurance companies...
Kelly Fristoe, an insurance agent in Wichita Falls, Texas, has submitted 25 paper applications since early October and hasn't received a response from federal health officials yet.
"At this time, we are not using any paper applications," he said.
That also contradicts what CMS told reporters this week.
Bataille, the spokeswoman for the federal agency, said all paper applications received during October have been processed.
Bataille previously served as Deputy Director of Communications for Vice President Al Gore and the Gore 2000 Presidential Campaign. According to the CMS website, Bataille "coordinated proactive outreach of key Gore messages." Perhaps her aversion to telling the inconvenient truth is something she picked up while serving under Gore.
Bataille also served as Assistant Press Secretary at the White House during the Clinton administration, and she worked in the office of Joe Biden when he was still a US Senator, which might also explain her mendacity. However, working with Obama these past two and a half years certainly helped Bataille consummate and perfect the art of fibbing.
According to the CMS website, Julie Bataille is also an accredited member of the Public Relations Society of America. Hmmm, prevarication might be an essential part of Public Relations, but the inconvenient truth is Bataille still needs to improve on her PR work just a tad bit.....
Executions in Iran have escalated during Rouhani Presidency
According to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, at least 529 people have been executed in Iran this year, and more than 300 of the executions took place after Hassan Rouhani ascended to the Presidency in August. Other estimates put the number of executions in Iran, this year, at more than 600.
Iran activists also point out that executions in Iran have increased markedly since the Obama administration and the Iranian regime began its most recent faze of negotiations, which concluded with a deal to give the Mullocracy the green light to enrich uranium while easing sanctions against them.
Iran activists also point out that executions in Iran have increased markedly since the Obama administration and the Iranian regime began its most recent faze of negotiations, which concluded with a deal to give the Mullocracy the green light to enrich uranium while easing sanctions against them.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Benghazi security excluded from State Department's frivolous spending sprees
The Weekly Standard reported last week that, in late September, as "the federal government's fiscal year was drawing to a close and the threat of a government shut down was increasing," the State Department agreed to purchase over a million dollars of artistic work to place at several U.S. embassies and consulates around the globe. The purchases, part of the State Department's Art for Embassies program, included a granite sculpture produced by Irish-born artist Sean Scully, at the cost of $1,000,000, which will be installed at the new U.S. Embassy in London.
The Weekly Standard noted that "although the form of the Scully sculpture is not identified in the award notification, the artist has produced granite sculptures before, including this one entitled "Wall of Light Cubed 2" in 2008 - or, as Front Page magazine calls it, "A pile of rocks".
It is worthy to note, that in the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, the State Department initially cited budget concerns as the reason it did not respond to requests for additional security at the U.S. consulate in the months prior to the attacks. And yet, Front Page Magazine notes, the State Department didn't have any budgetary concerns when it spent, and squandered, a $1,000,000 for "a pile of rocks."
Moreover, the Weekly Standard reported that the State Department's 2013 budget request included a total of $2.5 Million for the Art in Embassies program.
Bloomberg news noted last year that "through the State Department’s art-in-embassies program, US ambassadors can surround themselves with the finest works of art." Bloomberg also noted that many US ambassadors, who were appointed by President Obama, received their appointments as payback for the huge amounts of cash they brought in to Obama's Presidential campaign coffers. Hence, it certainly goes without saying that, on the basis of their campaign-bundling activities on behalf of Obama, the aforementioned ambassadors are clearly deserving of being surrounded by the finest works of art - or, the finest pile of rocks.....
On the flip side, it is highly doubtful that any of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks brought in any significant amounts of cash to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, hence there was clearly no reason to surround these people with the finest security - or even adequate security.
But truth be told, the State Department's decision to deny requests for additional security in Benghazi had nothing to do with budgetary concerns, but rather it was due to various other motives:
1) As others have noted previously, Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year that one of the primary reasons why ambassador Chris Stevens traveled to Benghazi prior to the attack was because the Obama administration, according to Stevens, had plans to convert the temporary facility in Benghazi to a permanent State Department facility - and Stevens traveled to Benghazi to help facilitate those plans.
And thus, the State Department was reluctant to comply with the request to send additional security personnel to Benghazi to defend against the increasing al Qaeda threat, because it would have most certainly stonewalled the administration's plans to establish a permanent presence there. If the increasing threat of al Qaeda, in Benghazi, required additional security personnel, how could the Obama administration proceed with its plans to establish a permanent State Department facility there? How could the Obama administration make the case that setting up a permanent and larger facility was a safe, feasible and viable plan?
2) The Obama administration, on a number of occasions, has expressed a reluctance to take necessary action in Benghazi for fear that such action might not sit well with the new Libyan government. Hence, sending additional security personnel to the US consulate, which already had a Libyan security presence there - albeit a Libyan security presence with ties to militants - was something the Obama administration was not keen on doing because it might agitate the Libyan government.
There are additional motives that we can add to the mix. But the bottom line is the budgetary concern cited by the State Department was clearly nothing more than a lame excuse for denying Ambassador Stevens' urgent requests for additional security.
Here are a few more examples of the State Department's unnecessary and frivolous spending sprees:
Frontpage magazine notes that the Obama administration is spending millions of dollars to help rebuild Islamic mosques and minarets in 27 different countries.
According to the State Department, the aforementioned projects are “cultural preservation” projects designed to “fight Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders.”
Judging from the fanatical, extremist leaders that Obama has chosen to rebuild relationships with, it is clear that the tax-payer money being squandered on these kind of projects is money well-spent. Ahem. Heh....
Frontpage Magazine also notes:
"While the State Department was busy repairing Egyptian mosques, scores of Egypt’s Coptic Christian churches were being burned down by Muslim mobs....
"In 2010 the State Department provided monetary support for saving three mosques on Zanzibar Island off the coast of Tanzania... That generous American donation was repaid in July 2012 when Muslim mobs, shouting, 'Away with the church — we do not want infidels to spoil our community, especially our children,' burned down three Christian churches on Zanzibar Island."
"In 2011 the State Department provided funds to restore the 15th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina State in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, an area which has become a virtual killing field for Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, led by the al-Qaeda-linked terror group Boko Haram.
"Since 2009 over 288 Christian churches in Nigeria have been burned, thousands of Christian-owned homes destroyed, and over 2,000 Christians killed, including in July 2012 when fifty members of a northern Nigerian church were burned to death in their pastor’s house."
And, apparently the State Department has an affinity for booze expenditures too:
Fox News reported:
"The department spent about $180,000 on alcohol in September and $400,000 in all of 2012, three times the $118,000 spent in 2008.
"The booze tab reportedly has risen every year since 2008, but the end of fiscal 2012 saw a particular spike. Part of the reason could be that, toward the end of the year, federal agencies often try to spend what's left in their budgets in order to reduce the risk that Congress will target them for cuts.
"Records for U.S. embassies show that alcohol spending went up at American posts around the world. The purchases included nearly $16,000 for bourbon and whiskey in Moscow, and more than $22,000 for wine in Tokyo...
"[State Department Spokesperson Marie] Harf said that the September alcohol purchases were made after the department's fiscal operating plan was approved by Congress, which coincidentally ended up being right before the partial government shutdown."
But of course, booze, and the fine art works that surround Obama's campaign-bundling US ambassadors, and the Islamic Mosque restoration projects are far more important than the lives of four lowly American citizens in Benghazi - especially when these American citizens went to Benghazi for the sole purpose of helping Obama rebuild a new Libya - a new Libya, which, unfortunately for the four dead Americans, is being dedicated to the Al Qaeda movement and to the Al Qaeda flag.........
The Weekly Standard noted that "although the form of the Scully sculpture is not identified in the award notification, the artist has produced granite sculptures before, including this one entitled "Wall of Light Cubed 2" in 2008 - or, as Front Page magazine calls it, "A pile of rocks".
It is worthy to note, that in the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, the State Department initially cited budget concerns as the reason it did not respond to requests for additional security at the U.S. consulate in the months prior to the attacks. And yet, Front Page Magazine notes, the State Department didn't have any budgetary concerns when it spent, and squandered, a $1,000,000 for "a pile of rocks."
Moreover, the Weekly Standard reported that the State Department's 2013 budget request included a total of $2.5 Million for the Art in Embassies program.
Bloomberg news noted last year that "through the State Department’s art-in-embassies program, US ambassadors can surround themselves with the finest works of art." Bloomberg also noted that many US ambassadors, who were appointed by President Obama, received their appointments as payback for the huge amounts of cash they brought in to Obama's Presidential campaign coffers. Hence, it certainly goes without saying that, on the basis of their campaign-bundling activities on behalf of Obama, the aforementioned ambassadors are clearly deserving of being surrounded by the finest works of art - or, the finest pile of rocks.....
On the flip side, it is highly doubtful that any of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks brought in any significant amounts of cash to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, hence there was clearly no reason to surround these people with the finest security - or even adequate security.
But truth be told, the State Department's decision to deny requests for additional security in Benghazi had nothing to do with budgetary concerns, but rather it was due to various other motives:
1) As others have noted previously, Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year that one of the primary reasons why ambassador Chris Stevens traveled to Benghazi prior to the attack was because the Obama administration, according to Stevens, had plans to convert the temporary facility in Benghazi to a permanent State Department facility - and Stevens traveled to Benghazi to help facilitate those plans.
And thus, the State Department was reluctant to comply with the request to send additional security personnel to Benghazi to defend against the increasing al Qaeda threat, because it would have most certainly stonewalled the administration's plans to establish a permanent presence there. If the increasing threat of al Qaeda, in Benghazi, required additional security personnel, how could the Obama administration proceed with its plans to establish a permanent State Department facility there? How could the Obama administration make the case that setting up a permanent and larger facility was a safe, feasible and viable plan?
2) The Obama administration, on a number of occasions, has expressed a reluctance to take necessary action in Benghazi for fear that such action might not sit well with the new Libyan government. Hence, sending additional security personnel to the US consulate, which already had a Libyan security presence there - albeit a Libyan security presence with ties to militants - was something the Obama administration was not keen on doing because it might agitate the Libyan government.
There are additional motives that we can add to the mix. But the bottom line is the budgetary concern cited by the State Department was clearly nothing more than a lame excuse for denying Ambassador Stevens' urgent requests for additional security.
Here are a few more examples of the State Department's unnecessary and frivolous spending sprees:
Frontpage magazine notes that the Obama administration is spending millions of dollars to help rebuild Islamic mosques and minarets in 27 different countries.
According to the State Department, the aforementioned projects are “cultural preservation” projects designed to “fight Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders.”
Judging from the fanatical, extremist leaders that Obama has chosen to rebuild relationships with, it is clear that the tax-payer money being squandered on these kind of projects is money well-spent. Ahem. Heh....
Frontpage Magazine also notes:
"While the State Department was busy repairing Egyptian mosques, scores of Egypt’s Coptic Christian churches were being burned down by Muslim mobs....
"In 2010 the State Department provided monetary support for saving three mosques on Zanzibar Island off the coast of Tanzania... That generous American donation was repaid in July 2012 when Muslim mobs, shouting, 'Away with the church — we do not want infidels to spoil our community, especially our children,' burned down three Christian churches on Zanzibar Island."
"In 2011 the State Department provided funds to restore the 15th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina State in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, an area which has become a virtual killing field for Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, led by the al-Qaeda-linked terror group Boko Haram.
"Since 2009 over 288 Christian churches in Nigeria have been burned, thousands of Christian-owned homes destroyed, and over 2,000 Christians killed, including in July 2012 when fifty members of a northern Nigerian church were burned to death in their pastor’s house."
And, apparently the State Department has an affinity for booze expenditures too:
Fox News reported:
"The department spent about $180,000 on alcohol in September and $400,000 in all of 2012, three times the $118,000 spent in 2008.
"The booze tab reportedly has risen every year since 2008, but the end of fiscal 2012 saw a particular spike. Part of the reason could be that, toward the end of the year, federal agencies often try to spend what's left in their budgets in order to reduce the risk that Congress will target them for cuts.
"Records for U.S. embassies show that alcohol spending went up at American posts around the world. The purchases included nearly $16,000 for bourbon and whiskey in Moscow, and more than $22,000 for wine in Tokyo...
"[State Department Spokesperson Marie] Harf said that the September alcohol purchases were made after the department's fiscal operating plan was approved by Congress, which coincidentally ended up being right before the partial government shutdown."
But of course, booze, and the fine art works that surround Obama's campaign-bundling US ambassadors, and the Islamic Mosque restoration projects are far more important than the lives of four lowly American citizens in Benghazi - especially when these American citizens went to Benghazi for the sole purpose of helping Obama rebuild a new Libya - a new Libya, which, unfortunately for the four dead Americans, is being dedicated to the Al Qaeda movement and to the Al Qaeda flag.........
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Harry Reid in September: Staffers will join Obamacare exchanges! - Video
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has exempted some of his staff from having to purchase health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, news media outlets reported on Wednesday, despite having said in September that senate staff members would join the Obamacare exchanges because, "That's what the law says."
"Let's stop these really juvenile political games — the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff," Reid told Reporters in September. "We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."
Technically, congressional committee staffers and leadership staffers - unlike ordinary congressional staffers - can be exempted from joining the health care exchanges due to a loophole in the law that allows these exemptions. But Reid's statement in September was clearly mendacious.
Sen. Ted Cruz issued a statement regarding Reid's decision to exempt staff members from the Obamacare exchanges:
"Sen. Reid's decision to exempt his staff from Obamacare exchanges is the clearest example yet of Obamacare's failures and Washington hypocrisy," Cruz said. "[Reid's] staff worked to pass it and continue to promote it, now they don't want to be part of it because it's a disaster. No one wants to lose their plans, pay higher premiums, higher deductibles, and have healthcare choices taken away from them. But, by passing Obamacare that’s exactly what Leader Reid and his staff did to millions of Americans. Now they understandably don't want to live with it. The only fair path forward is to repeal Obamacare, in its in entirety, for everyone."
"Let's stop these really juvenile political games — the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff," Reid told Reporters in September. "We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."
Technically, congressional committee staffers and leadership staffers - unlike ordinary congressional staffers - can be exempted from joining the health care exchanges due to a loophole in the law that allows these exemptions. But Reid's statement in September was clearly mendacious.
Sen. Ted Cruz issued a statement regarding Reid's decision to exempt staff members from the Obamacare exchanges:
"Sen. Reid's decision to exempt his staff from Obamacare exchanges is the clearest example yet of Obamacare's failures and Washington hypocrisy," Cruz said. "[Reid's] staff worked to pass it and continue to promote it, now they don't want to be part of it because it's a disaster. No one wants to lose their plans, pay higher premiums, higher deductibles, and have healthcare choices taken away from them. But, by passing Obamacare that’s exactly what Leader Reid and his staff did to millions of Americans. Now they understandably don't want to live with it. The only fair path forward is to repeal Obamacare, in its in entirety, for everyone."
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Kerry, Obama & Rouhani boast about Iran nuclear agreement - Video Spoof
Video Spoof of Secretary of State John Kerry, President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani boasting about the recent nuclear agreement that was signed between the Obama administration and the Khamenei regime that would 1) allow the regime to continue to enrich uranium, 2) loosen the sanctions imposed on Iran, 3) and create an irreparable fissure in the sanctions coalition.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Iran urges Afghanistan not to sign security pact with US
Iran’s foreign ministry urged the Afghan government not to sign a security pact with the U.S. that would allow a residual force of US and coalition troops to remain in Afghanistan after NATO withdraws from the country in 2014.
The Obama administration - wary of repeating the blunder it made when it insisted that no residual U.S. force would remain in Iraq after US troops left the country in 2011 - would like to leave behind a residual force of US and coalition troops in Afghanistan post 2014. But the Iranian regime, a primary backer of the Afghan insurgency, would prefer that no such arrangement be made, despite the fact that the Iranian regime is enjoying a cozy relationship with President Obama.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran does not consider the signing and approval of the pact useful for the long term expediencies and interests of Afghanistan," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said Tuesday in her weekly press conference.
The Obama administration - wary of repeating the blunder it made when it insisted that no residual U.S. force would remain in Iraq after US troops left the country in 2011 - would like to leave behind a residual force of US and coalition troops in Afghanistan post 2014. But the Iranian regime, a primary backer of the Afghan insurgency, would prefer that no such arrangement be made, despite the fact that the Iranian regime is enjoying a cozy relationship with President Obama.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran does not consider the signing and approval of the pact useful for the long term expediencies and interests of Afghanistan," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said Tuesday in her weekly press conference.
Did Obama reside with his uncle after his uncle received a deportation order? Is that why the White House lied about the matter?
From the Washington Post:
But perhaps Obama had a good reason to lie, aside from the fact that he felt uncomfortable admitting he had met an uncle who was residing in the US illegally - and aside from the fact that Obama happens to be a habitual and casual liar.
The Boston Globe notes the following:
Incidentally, I noted in December of 2011:
President Obama's uncle said at a deportation hearing Tuesday that Obama stayed with him while he was a student at Harvard Law School in the 1980s -- despite the White House having said that Obama never met the man.Weasel Zippers asks:
Onyango “Omar” Obama, 69, was arrested for drunk driving in 2011 and faced deportation after living in the United States for five decades. The judge decided to let the Kenyan national remain in the United States.
According to the Boston Globe, Omar Obama testified [at the hearing] that the president stayed with him in Cambridge [for three weeks] when he came to attend Harvard Law School [ in the late 1980s.]
[Onyango's] landlord, Alfred Ouma, who served as a witness at the hearing, confirmed that Barack Obama lived with his Uncle Omar....
The White House said following Omar Obama's arrest that he and the president had never met, [and that the] president was not close to his father's side of the family given his father's absence in his life.
The White House did not immediately comment on Omar Obama's claim [and the landlord's claim].
Why lie about this, just to not seem to have connection to illegal uncle? It’s a dumb lie, especially if uncle, et. al, wouldn’t back you up.The Blaze also wonders "why the White House would even bother to tell such a seemingly inconsequential lie?"
But perhaps Obama had a good reason to lie, aside from the fact that he felt uncomfortable admitting he had met an uncle who was residing in the US illegally - and aside from the fact that Obama happens to be a habitual and casual liar.
The Boston Globe notes the following:
Immigration judges’ rulings obtained by the Globe through the Freedom of Information Act show that Onyango Obama was ordered deported in 1986 and 1989 and then lost his appeal in 1992. The issue of deportation arose again after Onyango Obama was arrested for drunken driving in 2011 in Framingham, where he lived.In January, the Boston Globe noted:
According to the earlier judges’ decisions obtained by the Globe, an immigration judge first ordered [Onyango] deported in October 1986 because he had no legal basis to stay and no connection to the United States such as US-born children. Obama came to America at age 17, in October 1963, to enroll in a Cambridge boys’ school. Federal records show he was supposed to have left the United States by Dec. 24, 1970.Barack Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. If he stayed with his uncle in Cambridge when he came to attend Harvard Law School, that means he stayed with his uncle after the latter had already received a deportation order. I'm not sure whether it was against the law for Barack Obama to board with an uncle who was residing in this country illegally, but the President's reason for lying about the matter is pretty obvious.
Instead, [Onyango] Obama worked from 1973 to September 1984, when immigration officials found him, according to the court’s decision. In 1989, the judge again ordered him deported...
Incidentally, I noted in December of 2011:
Shortly after his arrest on DUI charges in 2011, Onyango Obama was asked whether he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail.Today the Boston Globe quoted a court official who said that, after his arrest in 2011, Onyango "served a year’s probation, attended an alcohol education class, paid fees, and the case was dismissed."
"I think I will call the White House," he replied.
However, he was later detained without bail by Federal immigration officials for defying an earlier deportation order to return to his native country, Kenya.
But, a little more than two weeks after his arrest, he was quietly released from prison.
Federal immigration officials refused to divulge whether he posted bail........ Source - Boston Globe
And, I suppose we'll never know whether he made that call to the White House or not...... Heh.....
Obama: I'll fight another THREE YEARS to make sure Obamacare is working
More than three years have passed since Obamacare was signed into law and yet the new health care legislation is still plagued with all sorts of problems. But President Obama reassured the American people, during a White House event on Tuesday, that there is no need to worry because, if necessary, he will fight another three years to make sure the new health care law is working.
"If I've got to fight another three years to make sure this law works," the President said, "then that's what I'll do, that's what we'll do."
Heh.... He'll spend another three years to make sure Obamacare is working.......
"If I've got to fight another three years to make sure this law works," the President said, "then that's what I'll do, that's what we'll do."
Heh.... He'll spend another three years to make sure Obamacare is working.......
Monday, December 2, 2013
UN Report: Attacks against Aid Workers in Afghanistan escalate as Obama continues to hand over security to Afghan forces
According to a UN report released over the weekend, there were 237 attacks on Afghanistan’s aid workers from January through November of 2013, which left 36 people dead, 46 wounded, 72 abducted and 24 detained. Last year, from January through December, there were 175 attacks on Afghanistan’s aid workers, which left 11 people dead, 26 wounded and 44 detained or abducted.
U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Afghanistan, Mark Bowden, said that the increase in attacks on Afghanistan's aid workers was a result of the Obama administration handing over the country's security to the Afghan security forces
"I am extremely concerned with this trend at a time when the country is in the midst of a difficult transition that may lead to increased humanitarian needs," Mr. Bowden said in a statement. “The nature of the fighting has changed. You have more disseminated ground-level fighting than you’ve had before, and this has come as a result of a change of tactics by handing over the fighting to the Afghan national security forces. So civilian casualties have increased dramatically this year, so obviously you’re seeing more widespread displacement of people as well.”
According to a mid-year report released by the UN in July, Civilian casualties in the first six months of 2013 increased 23% compared to the same period in 2012.
A UN official said at the time that, “The growing loss of life and injuries to Afghan women and children in 2013 is particularly disturbing. Deaths and injuries to women and children increased by 38 per cent in the first half of 2013 reflecting a grim reality of the conflict today in Afghanistan.”
U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Afghanistan, Mark Bowden, said that the increase in attacks on Afghanistan's aid workers was a result of the Obama administration handing over the country's security to the Afghan security forces
"I am extremely concerned with this trend at a time when the country is in the midst of a difficult transition that may lead to increased humanitarian needs," Mr. Bowden said in a statement. “The nature of the fighting has changed. You have more disseminated ground-level fighting than you’ve had before, and this has come as a result of a change of tactics by handing over the fighting to the Afghan national security forces. So civilian casualties have increased dramatically this year, so obviously you’re seeing more widespread displacement of people as well.”
According to a mid-year report released by the UN in July, Civilian casualties in the first six months of 2013 increased 23% compared to the same period in 2012.
A UN official said at the time that, “The growing loss of life and injuries to Afghan women and children in 2013 is particularly disturbing. Deaths and injuries to women and children increased by 38 per cent in the first half of 2013 reflecting a grim reality of the conflict today in Afghanistan.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)