Lamenting the plight of African Americans who, like many in this country, are suffering immensely as a result of his failed economic policies [see video below], President Obama on Thursday announced his "My Brother's Keeper" initiative calling on philanthropists and businesses to help repair the damage that he has inflicted upon African Americans and to help create more economic opportunities for "young men of color".
Friday, February 28, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Obama launches "My Brother's Keeper" initiative while abandoning his destitute half brother, George Obama
Although President Obama has callously abandoned his impoverished half-brother, George Obama - who lives in absolute destitution in a slum in Kenya - Mr. Obama nevertheless launched his "My Brother's Keeper" initiative on Thursday calling on philanthropists and businesses to ignore his own callousness, and to create, among other things, more economic opportunities for "young men of color".
"It doesn't take that much [to lend assistance]," the President said during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, "but it takes more than we're doing now. And that's what My Brother's Keeper is all about." It's all about not following the President's example.
Incidentally, the President's half-brother was not in attendance for the ceremony.
"It doesn't take that much [to lend assistance]," the President said during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, "but it takes more than we're doing now. And that's what My Brother's Keeper is all about." It's all about not following the President's example.
Incidentally, the President's half-brother was not in attendance for the ceremony.
U.N. withholds report on Iran nuclear weapons development & research
From Reuters:
The U.N. nuclear watchdog planned a major report on Iran that might have revealed more of its suspected atomic bomb research, but held off as Tehran's relations with the outside world thawed, sources familiar with the matter said... According to the sources, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has apparently dropped the idea of a new report, at least for the time being...
A decision not to go ahead with the new document may raise questions about information that the UN agency has gathered in the last two years on what it calls the "possible military dimensions" (PMD) to Iran's nuclear program...
The sources... suggested the more recent material concerned extra detail about alleged research and experiments that were covered in [a] November 2011 report. A new report would probably have included "updated information on PMD ["possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program] which could have "reinforced the concern" about Iran.
The IAEA's dossier in November 2011 contained a trove of intelligence indicating past activity in Iran which could be used for developing nuclear weapons...
Since then the agency has said it obtained more information that backs up its analysis in the 2011 document, which detailed allegations ranging from explosives testing to research on what experts describe as an atomic bomb trigger.
Other issues it wants Iran to address are alleged detonator development, computer modeling to calculate nuclear explosive yields, and preparatory experimentation that could be useful for any atomic test...
One source said it was believed that the Vienna-based IAEA had received more information on suspicions of nuclear yield calculations, but it was not known to what extent this would have made it into a new report on Iran.
"The agency has obtained more information since November 2011 that has further corroborated the analysis contained in that annex," it said on February 20 in a regular quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program. It has been investigating accusations for several years that Iran may have coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives and revamp a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead...
The sources said that last year's planned report would probably have amounted to a wider review of the Iranian nuclear file, including PMD [possible military dimensions] and other outstanding issues
Sebelius is the real deal! Her mentor is beaming with pride!
In an interview on Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked the following question:
"Vice President Joe Biden said that 5.6 million Americans enrolling in Obamcare by March 31 would be a good start. That's 1 million to 2 million short of the 7 million mark that the administration said. Do you agree with Vice President Biden that 5 or 6 is a much more realistic mark than 7?"
Sebelius replied: "7 million was not the administration. That was a CBO, Congressional Budget Office prediction when the bill was first signed. I'm not quite sure where they even got their numbers. Their numbers are all over the board."
President Obama's eyes, no doubt, were gleaming with immense pride when he heard Sebelius utter that cunning piece of sophistry - because, at that very moment, he realized that Sebelius was truly an Obama mentee, who, like her mentor, had completely mastered the art of prevarication.
Sebelius's response was classical Obama; it was right up Obama's alley!
I could just visualize the President, upon hearing Sebelius's remarks, hollering exuberantly at the top of his lungs: "Remarkable, Kathleen! Job well done!" And then the President orders his staffers to, "Give it up for Sebelius!" And, of course, they respond on cue with a thunderous round of applause!
Sebelius has proved her worth; she's the real deal - a genuine Obama mentee.
Of course, as others have dutifully noted, Sebelius, on a number of occasions, has stated that her target, and the administration's target, was to have 7 million Obamacare enrollees by the end of March.
On one occasion - which I believe has not been mentioned - Sebelius was discussing a 6 month enrollment campaign that would begin on October 1, 2013 and end on March 31, 2014. She was asked the following question by the Washington Post in July of 2013:
"How are you going to measure success on March 31?"
Sebelius replied: "Our target for this first open enrollment period is to have 7 million newly enrolled individuals throughout the country."
Others have noted that Sebelius told NBC News in September of 2013: “I think success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up by the end of March 2014.”
And yet, Sebelius stated on Tuesday, much to the delight of the Prevaricator-in-Chief - that "7 million was not the administration."
She then went on to say - in typical Obama fashion: "That was a CBO, Congressional Budget Office prediction. I'm not quite sure where they even got their numbers. Their numbers are all over the board."
So, all of a sudden, the 7 million number is ridiculous - an absurdly "over the board" number.
"I'm not quite sure where they even got their numbers," Sebelius said. "Their numbers are all over the board."
And yet, Sebelius stated: "Our target for this first open enrollment period is to have 7 million newly enrolled individuals throughout the country." “I think success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up by the end of March 2014.”
"All over the board," indeed.
She's the real deal - and her mentor is beaming with pride.
Give it up for Kathleen!
In late October, 2013, the AP pointed out another prevarication that Sebelius had made:
"Vice President Joe Biden said that 5.6 million Americans enrolling in Obamcare by March 31 would be a good start. That's 1 million to 2 million short of the 7 million mark that the administration said. Do you agree with Vice President Biden that 5 or 6 is a much more realistic mark than 7?"
Sebelius replied: "7 million was not the administration. That was a CBO, Congressional Budget Office prediction when the bill was first signed. I'm not quite sure where they even got their numbers. Their numbers are all over the board."
President Obama's eyes, no doubt, were gleaming with immense pride when he heard Sebelius utter that cunning piece of sophistry - because, at that very moment, he realized that Sebelius was truly an Obama mentee, who, like her mentor, had completely mastered the art of prevarication.
Sebelius's response was classical Obama; it was right up Obama's alley!
I could just visualize the President, upon hearing Sebelius's remarks, hollering exuberantly at the top of his lungs: "Remarkable, Kathleen! Job well done!" And then the President orders his staffers to, "Give it up for Sebelius!" And, of course, they respond on cue with a thunderous round of applause!
Sebelius has proved her worth; she's the real deal - a genuine Obama mentee.
Of course, as others have dutifully noted, Sebelius, on a number of occasions, has stated that her target, and the administration's target, was to have 7 million Obamacare enrollees by the end of March.
On one occasion - which I believe has not been mentioned - Sebelius was discussing a 6 month enrollment campaign that would begin on October 1, 2013 and end on March 31, 2014. She was asked the following question by the Washington Post in July of 2013:
"How are you going to measure success on March 31?"
Sebelius replied: "Our target for this first open enrollment period is to have 7 million newly enrolled individuals throughout the country."
Others have noted that Sebelius told NBC News in September of 2013: “I think success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up by the end of March 2014.”
And yet, Sebelius stated on Tuesday, much to the delight of the Prevaricator-in-Chief - that "7 million was not the administration."
She then went on to say - in typical Obama fashion: "That was a CBO, Congressional Budget Office prediction. I'm not quite sure where they even got their numbers. Their numbers are all over the board."
So, all of a sudden, the 7 million number is ridiculous - an absurdly "over the board" number.
"I'm not quite sure where they even got their numbers," Sebelius said. "Their numbers are all over the board."
And yet, Sebelius stated: "Our target for this first open enrollment period is to have 7 million newly enrolled individuals throughout the country." “I think success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up by the end of March 2014.”
"All over the board," indeed.
She's the real deal - and her mentor is beaming with pride.
Give it up for Kathleen!
In late October, 2013, the AP pointed out another prevarication that Sebelius had made:
Misstating the health care law she is responsible for administering, Kathleen Sebelius has asserted that the law required health insurance sign-ups to start Oct. 1, whether the system was ready or not. In fact, the decision when to launch the sign-up website was hers...Her mentor is beaming with pride.........
In a visit to a community health center in Austin, Texas, Sebelius acknowledged more testing would have been preferable. "In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing, but we did not have the luxury of that and the law said the go-time was Oct. 1," she said.
But the law imposed no legal requirement to open the website Oct 1. The law says only that the enrollment period shall be "as determined by the secretary." The launch date was set not in the law, but in regulations her department had issued. Agencies routinely allow themselves flexibility on self-imposed deadlines...
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Lack of support among Democrats for minimum wage increase forces a delay in floor debate
Senate Democrats have again delayed debating a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour because not all Democrats are on board with the proposal.
Lacking the required 60 votes to block a potential filibuster, Democratic lawmakers now say a floor debate on the proposed legislation will be postponed until late March.
Nevertheless, despite the real reason for the postponement - namely, the lack of votes among Democratic lawmakers - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to save face by blaming Republican opposition to some of President Obama's nominees for slowing the chamber's work, thereby [supposedly] causing a delay in the minimum wage floor debate.
Among the Democratic lawmakers opposed to the proposed legislation are Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Warner of Virginia, who are up for re- election in November, who voiced concerns about "timing" [heh, re-election timing] and the "amount" of increase in the minimum wage, Bloomberg News reported.
“There ought to be an increase in the minimum wage,” Warner said. “[But] I think there’s a valid debate about amount and timing.” Yeah, right, re-election "timing", heh...
Sen. Pryor said that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is “too much, too fast,” but he said on Tuesday that he may consider a smaller increase.
Sen Landrieu told reporters on Tuesday that while she supports some sort of wage increase, she hadn’t committed to the $10.10 increase proposed by President Obama.
But despite the aforementioned reservations, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked whether there might be a compromise to raise the minimum wage while keeping it below the $10.10 an hour level that President Barack Obama proposed, so as to ease the concerns of Democrats who are up for re-election this year and who may be reluctant to support the $10.10 an hour proposal, Mr. Reid responded, "Not with me!"
There will be no compromise between Sen. Reid and his Democratic colleagues!
Lacking the required 60 votes to block a potential filibuster, Democratic lawmakers now say a floor debate on the proposed legislation will be postponed until late March.
Nevertheless, despite the real reason for the postponement - namely, the lack of votes among Democratic lawmakers - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to save face by blaming Republican opposition to some of President Obama's nominees for slowing the chamber's work, thereby [supposedly] causing a delay in the minimum wage floor debate.
Among the Democratic lawmakers opposed to the proposed legislation are Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Warner of Virginia, who are up for re- election in November, who voiced concerns about "timing" [heh, re-election timing] and the "amount" of increase in the minimum wage, Bloomberg News reported.
“There ought to be an increase in the minimum wage,” Warner said. “[But] I think there’s a valid debate about amount and timing.” Yeah, right, re-election "timing", heh...
Sen. Pryor said that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is “too much, too fast,” but he said on Tuesday that he may consider a smaller increase.
Sen Landrieu told reporters on Tuesday that while she supports some sort of wage increase, she hadn’t committed to the $10.10 increase proposed by President Obama.
But despite the aforementioned reservations, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked whether there might be a compromise to raise the minimum wage while keeping it below the $10.10 an hour level that President Barack Obama proposed, so as to ease the concerns of Democrats who are up for re-election this year and who may be reluctant to support the $10.10 an hour proposal, Mr. Reid responded, "Not with me!"
There will be no compromise between Sen. Reid and his Democratic colleagues!
Irresponsible, Negligent Obamacare rollout: More than Two Thirds of State Obamacare Systems were Initially rated As 'High Risk' for Security Problems
From the AP:
As the Obama administration raced to meet its self-imposed deadline for online health insurance markets, security experts working for the government worried that state computer systems could become a back door for hackers.But of course, the administration was more interested in educating Americans on how to purchase Obamacare than in educating them on how they could avoid identity theft and avoid losing their pants.
Documents provided to The Associated Press show that more than two-thirds of state systems that were supposed to tap into federal computers to verify sensitive personal information for coverage were initially rated as "high risk" for security problems.
Back-door attacks have been in the news, since the hackers who stole millions of customers' credit and debit card numbers from Target are believed to have gained access through a contractor's network...
Issues detailed in documents and emails provided by the House Oversight and Government Reform committee reveal broader concerns than the federal Health and Human Services department has previously acknowledged.
They show a frenzied behind-the-scenes juggling act by officials and contractors as the Oct. 1 deadline for new health insurance exchanges loomed. Instead of providing a showcase for President Barack Obama, the launch of his health care law became a case study in how big technology projects can go off the rails.
In order to connect to federal computers, state and other outside systems must undergo a security review and receive an "authority to connect."
With the health care law, states needed approval to connect to a new federal data hub, an electronic back room that pings Social Security, the Internal Revenue Service, Homeland Security to verify personal details about people applying for government-subsidized insurance. The hub handles sensitive information, including income, immigration status and Social Security numbers.
The documents showed a high-stakes decision-making process playing out against a backdrop of tension and uncertainty as the clock ran out.
For example:
— In one email from Sept. 29, a Sunday two days before the launch, Teresa Fryer, chief information security officer for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, wrote of the state security approvals, "The front office is signing them whether or not they are a high risk." Her agency, known as CMS, also administers the health care law.
Two days earlier, in a separate document, CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner approved nine states to connect although the approval document noted that "CMS views the October 1 connections to the nine states as a risk due to the fact that their documentation may not be submitted completely nor reviewed...by Oct. 1." Approval was contingent on states submitting proper documentation. ..
— A CMS PowerPoint presentation from Sept. 23 revealed huge differences in states' readiness. Some were already approved; others had security weaknesses that were well understood and being tackled. But there were also states where the federal government had little information on security preparations.
"CMS views these connections to states as a high risk due to the unknown nature of their systems," according to the presentation.
CMS officials contemplated whether their agency would have to accept risk on behalf of other federal government entities, including Social Security and the IRS.
—A federal contractor explicitly detailed the potential consequences of what he called an "elevated high risk."
Allowing states to connect without the appropriate review "introduces an unknown amount of risk" that could put the personal information of "potentially millions of users at risk of identity theft," not to mention exposing the program to fraud, contractor Ryan Brewer wrote to CMS security in a Sept. 18 email.
Brewer had formerly been in government, as top CMS information security officer...
"The administration has not been forthcoming with the American people about the serious security risks," the oversight panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa said in a statement. "Despite repeated assurances from HHS, the department appears to still be struggling with security concerns."
Cybersecurity consultant and author Theresa Payton, who reviewed the materials for the AP... said a phased rollout of the health care markets would have been a prudent way to keep risks manageable.
The administration should have found a way to let consumers know that the new online markets weren't quite ready for prime time, she said. "A customer education campaign on how to avoid fraud would have gone a long way."
Even top-performing states are not immune to problems. In a Jan. 10 email exchange, officials and contractors wondered whether they might have to disconnect California from federal computers after a website publicly disclosed that state's vulnerabilities.Related Post: CEO of online security firm tells congress Obamacare website's security flaws have gotten worse since he last testified before congress in November of last year
"There are many security issues with the states' systems," a contractor wrote to CMS supervisors. "I would expect many more of the 'known' flaws to be posted in the near future."
Monday, February 24, 2014
Iraq signed deal to buy arms & ammunition from Iran in 2013, and the Obama administration knew it, despite its deceitful obfuscations
From Reuters:
More obfuscations, more lies - so typical of this administration.
Bear in mind what Obama said during a 2008 Democratic Presidential primary debate, namely, that the leaders of Iran and Syria have an important role to play in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and Syria are "going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region," he added.
Yep, that's right, Iran and Syria will help bring stability to Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire region [heh...], according to Obama.
Sadly, Iraq is steadily becoming a proxy state for Iran, under the auspices, and with the approval, of President Obama, who certainly knew about the Iraqi/Iranian arms deal back in November, and who no doubt, relishes, not only the deal, but the newfound relationship between Iran and Iraq.
Hopefully, the US, and the free world at large, will survive, and overcome, Obama's convoluted policies.
Iran has signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million, according to documents seen by Reuters - a move that would break a U.N. embargo on weapons sales by Tehran... The agreement was reached at the end of November.Wait a minute! A UN diplomat close to the U.N. Security Council's Iran sanctions committee was aware of the deal and expressed concern about it, and U.S. government experts believed an Iranian-Iraqi arms deal had been in the works for some time, but the U.S. State Department had no knowledge of it, and said it was looking into the reports?!
The Iranian government denied any knowledge of a deal to sell arms to Iraq. It would be the first official arms deal between Shi'ite Iran and Iraq's Shi'ite-led government and would highlight the growing bond between them in the two years since the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq.
The U.S. State Department said it was looking into the reports.
"If true, this would raise serious concerns," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told a news briefing.
A U.N. diplomatic source close to the U.N. Security Council's Iran sanctions committee was aware of the Iran-Iraq arms deal and voiced concern about it, while declining to disclose details about those concerns. The source spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity...
One Western security official said U.S. government experts believed an Iranian-Iraqi arms deal had been in the works for some time.
More obfuscations, more lies - so typical of this administration.
The growing friendship between the two countries is discomfiting for the United States, which has accused Iran of having shipped arms to the Syrian government through Iraq...Truth be told, even if members of the Obama administration say they are troubled by the idea, President Obama himself, in all likelihood, is not the least bit troubled by it - despite the fact that Iran has armed and trained Iraqi and Afghan insurgents who've killed thousands of US troops.
The weapons purchases amount to a drop in the ocean for Iraq, which receives most of its arms from the United States and has also bought weapons and helicopters from Russia and other countries.
But they are politically significant as Maliki purses a third term in office.
Iraqi politicians consider Iran's blessing as a necessity for seeking power. Maliki won his second term in 2010 only after the Iranians exerted pressure on recalcitrant Shi'ite parties on his behalf.
Many Iraqis accuse Iran of funding Iraqi Shi'ite militias who have seen a resurgence in the last two years as Iraq's security has deteriorated.
Images of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei now decorate posters seen around Baghdad of Iraqi Shiite fighters slain fighting in Syria...
Mohammad Marandi, a professor at University of Tehran, told Reuters... that Iran would not be troubled by the idea [of selling arms to Iraq]: "Iranians don't accept the legitimacy of sanctions. Plus, Iran sells military equipment to many countries."
Bear in mind what Obama said during a 2008 Democratic Presidential primary debate, namely, that the leaders of Iran and Syria have an important role to play in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and Syria are "going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region," he added.
Yep, that's right, Iran and Syria will help bring stability to Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire region [heh...], according to Obama.
Sadly, Iraq is steadily becoming a proxy state for Iran, under the auspices, and with the approval, of President Obama, who certainly knew about the Iraqi/Iranian arms deal back in November, and who no doubt, relishes, not only the deal, but the newfound relationship between Iran and Iraq.
Hopefully, the US, and the free world at large, will survive, and overcome, Obama's convoluted policies.
Hagel: As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risks; American dominance can no longer be taken for granted
Further advancing President Obama's goal of reducing the size of the US military and allowing friendly allies like Iran and Syria to carry more responsibility in combating terror and facilitating peace, harmony and stability all across the globe [heh......], Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Monday the Obama administration's new budget proposal that calls for the US Army to shrink to 440,000 to 450,000 soldiers by 2019, its smallest size in 74 years.
The New York Times noted: "Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries."
The Wall Street Journal noted the proposed budget includes "a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits and less generous housing allowances for troops and their families."
Likewise, the Hill reported that "the budget unveiled by Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel would cut the growth of housing allowances for troops and their families, and reduce subsidies provided to military commissaries that provide military families with low-cost goods. It would also increase health care co-pays and deductibles for retirees and active-duty family members, except for those medically retired."
In 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates - who acquiesced, and bowed, to President Obama's demands to begin dismantling the US military - stated: "If we are going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications are for the security of the country, as well as for the variety of military operations we have around the world if lower priority missions are scaled back or eliminated. They need to understand what it could mean for a smaller pool of troops and their families if America is forced into a protracted land war again... To shirk this discussion of risks and consequences – and the hard decisions that must follow – I would regard as managerial cowardice."
To acquiesce, and bow, to Obama's demands, despite the inherent dangers involved in such capitulation, is indeed managerial cowardice and absolute negligence.
Mr. Gates went on to say: "I know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. But there is no doubt in my mind that the continued strength and global reach of the American military will remain the greatest deterrent against aggression, and the most effective means of preserving peace in the 21st century, as it was in the 20th."
Yeah, right, but what about the "managerial cowardice" and absolute negligence.....
The Daily Mail-UK reported:
Here's what he should have said, or, what he meant to say:
"We are living in the Obama [and Hagel] era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and space can no longer be taken for granted. As a consequence of the President and your's truly, our future force will assume a plethora of risks in a great many areas."
The New York Times noted: "Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries."
The Wall Street Journal noted the proposed budget includes "a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits and less generous housing allowances for troops and their families."
Likewise, the Hill reported that "the budget unveiled by Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel would cut the growth of housing allowances for troops and their families, and reduce subsidies provided to military commissaries that provide military families with low-cost goods. It would also increase health care co-pays and deductibles for retirees and active-duty family members, except for those medically retired."
In 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates - who acquiesced, and bowed, to President Obama's demands to begin dismantling the US military - stated: "If we are going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications are for the security of the country, as well as for the variety of military operations we have around the world if lower priority missions are scaled back or eliminated. They need to understand what it could mean for a smaller pool of troops and their families if America is forced into a protracted land war again... To shirk this discussion of risks and consequences – and the hard decisions that must follow – I would regard as managerial cowardice."
To acquiesce, and bow, to Obama's demands, despite the inherent dangers involved in such capitulation, is indeed managerial cowardice and absolute negligence.
Mr. Gates went on to say: "I know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. But there is no doubt in my mind that the continued strength and global reach of the American military will remain the greatest deterrent against aggression, and the most effective means of preserving peace in the 21st century, as it was in the 20th."
Yeah, right, but what about the "managerial cowardice" and absolute negligence.....
The Daily Mail-UK reported:
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has proposed shrinking the Army to its smallest size in 74 years through a series of base closures and troops cuts, and by completely eliminating several Air Force aircraft fleets...Hagel's remarks would have been more precise with a few additional words inserted into the text.
Hagel surprised some observers on Monday when he outlined a military philosophy that removed America from the center of its universe.
"The development and proliferation of more advanced military technology of other nations – it means that we are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and space can no longer be taken for granted...," Hagel said.
"As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risks in some areas," he added.
Here's what he should have said, or, what he meant to say:
"We are living in the Obama [and Hagel] era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and space can no longer be taken for granted. As a consequence of the President and your's truly, our future force will assume a plethora of risks in a great many areas."
Friday, February 21, 2014
Asthma sufferer now realizes Obamacare can't help him, despite Obama's 2008 remarks
Speaking at a campaign rally during his 2008 Presidential run, then-Sen. Obama made the following remarks with regards to health insurance:
"Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave, treatment early, and they got some treatment, and, uhhh, a breathalyzer, or, uhh, an inhalator, not a breathalyzer... [laughter] I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours... [laughter] If they had an inhalator, inhaler - I'm still stumbling over this word. You know what I mean. You know what I mean. Then we would save money."
Obama stumbled over his words; perhaps he was drunk, which would would explain the "breathalyzer" gaffe. But nevertheless, he was trying to make the case for national health insurance - or, as he likes to call it, "affordable health care" - by using an asthma sufferer as an illustration of someone who would benefit from national health insurance.
So, let's see how those asthma sufferers are faring, right now, under Obamacare:
From the Denver Post:
Yes, Mr. Obama, I know what you mean.............
"Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave, treatment early, and they got some treatment, and, uhhh, a breathalyzer, or, uhh, an inhalator, not a breathalyzer... [laughter] I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours... [laughter] If they had an inhalator, inhaler - I'm still stumbling over this word. You know what I mean. You know what I mean. Then we would save money."
Obama stumbled over his words; perhaps he was drunk, which would would explain the "breathalyzer" gaffe. But nevertheless, he was trying to make the case for national health insurance - or, as he likes to call it, "affordable health care" - by using an asthma sufferer as an illustration of someone who would benefit from national health insurance.
So, let's see how those asthma sufferers are faring, right now, under Obamacare:
From the Denver Post:
Matt Leising spends about $3,600 a year on medication to treat asthma and sinus problems, so he was supportive when Washington politicians were debating the Affordable Care Act."You know what I mean. You know what I mean......."
After the law passed and then began rolling out last fall, Leising went to Colorado's health care exchange website to look for coverage, but the 29-year-old Littleton resident quickly realized he couldn't afford any of the plans.
The lowest monthly premium was $175, but the deductible was $10,000, meaning he would still have to pay for his medication and other expenses. He decided to just pay for his medication out of pocket and take the $95 tax penalty for a single person...
Yes, Mr. Obama, I know what you mean.............
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Obama & Harper diverge on Keystone XL Pipeline - Three Amigos, North American Leaders' Summit
Although President Obama has accused members of congress of dragging their feet on various pieces of legislation that he supports and that he claims would boost the US economy - it is the President, who, over the last five years, has dragged his feet on the Keystone XL Pipeline project despite the immense economic benefit the project would provide to countless of American families.
During a press conference Wednesday at the North American Leaders' Summit - often referred to as "the Three Amigos Summit" - a Canadian reporter cited a State Department environmental report that concluded the Keystone pipeline would not have a significant effect on climate change.
The reporter then asked President Obama: "What more needs to be done on both sides of the [Canada/US] border for this project to go ahead?" The reporter also asked Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to weigh in on the matter.
President Obama responded: "There is a process that has been gone through, and I know it's been extensive, and at times I'm sure Stephen feels a little too laborious. But these are how we make these decisions about something that could potentially have a significant impact on America's national economy and our national interests."
"The State Department has gone through its review," the president added. "There's now a comment period in which other agencies weigh in. That will be evaluated by Secretary of State Kerry, and we'll make a decision at that point."
Mr. Harper told the reporter that Canada and the U.S. have a "shared concern" about climate change, but, he added, "In terms of climate change, I think the State Department report already was pretty definitive on that particular issue."
"My views in favor of the project are very well known," Harper said.
"[President Obama's] views on the 'process' are also equally well known, and we had that discussion and we'll continue on that discussion."
Mr. Harper didn't appear to be overly enthused by the Obama administration's lengthy, and multiple, environmental review process - due to the detrimental effect that the prolonged process, and unestablished timeline, has on investors.
"As you know, a couple of years ago we [Canadians] moved to reform our system so that we have a single (environmental) review wherever possible — a single review, a multidimensional review that happens over a fixed timeline," Harper said. "And I think that is a process that is tremendously useful in giving investors greater certainty in terms of the kind of plans they may have in the Canadian economy."
During a press conference Wednesday at the North American Leaders' Summit - often referred to as "the Three Amigos Summit" - a Canadian reporter cited a State Department environmental report that concluded the Keystone pipeline would not have a significant effect on climate change.
The reporter then asked President Obama: "What more needs to be done on both sides of the [Canada/US] border for this project to go ahead?" The reporter also asked Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to weigh in on the matter.
President Obama responded: "There is a process that has been gone through, and I know it's been extensive, and at times I'm sure Stephen feels a little too laborious. But these are how we make these decisions about something that could potentially have a significant impact on America's national economy and our national interests."
"The State Department has gone through its review," the president added. "There's now a comment period in which other agencies weigh in. That will be evaluated by Secretary of State Kerry, and we'll make a decision at that point."
Mr. Harper told the reporter that Canada and the U.S. have a "shared concern" about climate change, but, he added, "In terms of climate change, I think the State Department report already was pretty definitive on that particular issue."
"My views in favor of the project are very well known," Harper said.
"[President Obama's] views on the 'process' are also equally well known, and we had that discussion and we'll continue on that discussion."
Mr. Harper didn't appear to be overly enthused by the Obama administration's lengthy, and multiple, environmental review process - due to the detrimental effect that the prolonged process, and unestablished timeline, has on investors.
"As you know, a couple of years ago we [Canadians] moved to reform our system so that we have a single (environmental) review wherever possible — a single review, a multidimensional review that happens over a fixed timeline," Harper said. "And I think that is a process that is tremendously useful in giving investors greater certainty in terms of the kind of plans they may have in the Canadian economy."
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
CBO: Obama's proposed minimum wage increase would lead to even more joblessness
According to a new report released by the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday, President Obama's proposed minimum wage increase would lead to more joblessness and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.
The President has proposed raising the minimum wage from the current hourly wage of $7.25 to $10.10 an hour by the year 2016.
However, according to the CBO report, a $9 increase in the minimum wage would eliminate 100,000 jobs and a $10.10 increase would eliminate 500,000 jobs as employers would ultimately reduce their workforce to make up for the higher wages.
500,000 jobs would be lost, while only 900,000 Americans, out of the 45 million projected to be living in poverty in 2016, would rise above the poverty level, the CBO noted.
Roughly 3.6 million Americans were paid $7.25 an hour or less in 2012, representing 4.7% of hourly workers, the Wall Street Journal noted.
Additionally, the CBO report said that a minimum wage increase would force businesses to raise their prices, which, in turn, would force consumers to cut back on their purchases, which would mean businesses - manufacturers, retail outlets etc. - would need less workers.
The Wall Street Journal noted that, according to the CBO report, just 19% of the increased wages would go to Americans living below the poverty threshold, while close to 30% of the increased wages would go to people living in families that earned more than three times the poverty level, as many minimum-wage workers are second earners and teenage children living in middle- or upper-income households.
And, of course, as I noted earlier, a minimum wage increase would result in higher prices for consumers.
But of course none of this matters to the President - the master pol and the campaigner par excellence - whose sole focus is to cast the seductive bait and to reel in the gullible fish by fine tuning his phony talking points and polishing his crafty sound bites.
The Wall Street Journal noted that, "The [CBO] report could blunt the political momentum Democrats had hoped the issue would give them in November's midterm elections."
But, no need to worry; leave it to Obama - the master pol and Campaigner-in Chief - to use the phony bait to his advantage.
The President has proposed raising the minimum wage from the current hourly wage of $7.25 to $10.10 an hour by the year 2016.
However, according to the CBO report, a $9 increase in the minimum wage would eliminate 100,000 jobs and a $10.10 increase would eliminate 500,000 jobs as employers would ultimately reduce their workforce to make up for the higher wages.
500,000 jobs would be lost, while only 900,000 Americans, out of the 45 million projected to be living in poverty in 2016, would rise above the poverty level, the CBO noted.
Roughly 3.6 million Americans were paid $7.25 an hour or less in 2012, representing 4.7% of hourly workers, the Wall Street Journal noted.
Additionally, the CBO report said that a minimum wage increase would force businesses to raise their prices, which, in turn, would force consumers to cut back on their purchases, which would mean businesses - manufacturers, retail outlets etc. - would need less workers.
The Wall Street Journal noted that, according to the CBO report, just 19% of the increased wages would go to Americans living below the poverty threshold, while close to 30% of the increased wages would go to people living in families that earned more than three times the poverty level, as many minimum-wage workers are second earners and teenage children living in middle- or upper-income households.
And, of course, as I noted earlier, a minimum wage increase would result in higher prices for consumers.
But of course none of this matters to the President - the master pol and the campaigner par excellence - whose sole focus is to cast the seductive bait and to reel in the gullible fish by fine tuning his phony talking points and polishing his crafty sound bites.
The Wall Street Journal noted that, "The [CBO] report could blunt the political momentum Democrats had hoped the issue would give them in November's midterm elections."
But, no need to worry; leave it to Obama - the master pol and Campaigner-in Chief - to use the phony bait to his advantage.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Carney: Obamacare payment system will take months to complete, hence WH uncertain how many have actually paid for Obamacare, or how many are truly enrolled
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, the Obama campaign mocked then-Republican Presidential candidate John McCain by depicting him as a computer illiterate, backward candidate. But sadly, it is President Obama's ineptitude at using an iPhone - during the 2012 PresIdential campaign - and the administration's inability to erect a functioning website for its health care insurance program that has left many wondering, "What planet, and which era, are these people living in!?"
And, the ineptitude keeps piling up.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Friday that the administration could not be certain just how many Obamacare enrollees have made their payments, because the Obamacare website's automated payment system has yet to be fully developed, and, will not be completed until several months down the road, CBS News reported.
“There's an automated payment system that will coming online fully in the next several months, which will include in the flow of information... timely data relating to the payment of premiums by enrollees,” Carney said, adding that, “Once that automated payment processing system is online, in a few months, that system will provide [the Obama administration] with the kind of data that we've been asked about."
Hence, the White House does not have specific information about who has met their payment, Carney said.
The New York Times reported on Thursday that roughly 20 percent of Obamacare applicants did not pay their premiums and thus failed to obtain coverage last month.
Moreover, the White House's inability to obtain the necessary payment information makes it impossible to know just how many Americans who signed up for Obamacare are truly enrolled in the program, CBS News noted, via the following quote taken from the New York Times' report.
“I think people are enrolling in multiple places,” Aetna CEO Mark T. Bertolini reportedly said. “They are shopping. And what happens is that they never really get back on HealthCare.gov to disenroll from plans they prior enrolled in.”
Why is the Obama administration so clueless about setting up a functioning website?
I don't know.
Perhaps Sen. McCain can give the President and his henchmen a few tips on how the internet works.......
And, the ineptitude keeps piling up.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Friday that the administration could not be certain just how many Obamacare enrollees have made their payments, because the Obamacare website's automated payment system has yet to be fully developed, and, will not be completed until several months down the road, CBS News reported.
“There's an automated payment system that will coming online fully in the next several months, which will include in the flow of information... timely data relating to the payment of premiums by enrollees,” Carney said, adding that, “Once that automated payment processing system is online, in a few months, that system will provide [the Obama administration] with the kind of data that we've been asked about."
Hence, the White House does not have specific information about who has met their payment, Carney said.
The New York Times reported on Thursday that roughly 20 percent of Obamacare applicants did not pay their premiums and thus failed to obtain coverage last month.
Moreover, the White House's inability to obtain the necessary payment information makes it impossible to know just how many Americans who signed up for Obamacare are truly enrolled in the program, CBS News noted, via the following quote taken from the New York Times' report.
“I think people are enrolling in multiple places,” Aetna CEO Mark T. Bertolini reportedly said. “They are shopping. And what happens is that they never really get back on HealthCare.gov to disenroll from plans they prior enrolled in.”
Why is the Obama administration so clueless about setting up a functioning website?
I don't know.
Perhaps Sen. McCain can give the President and his henchmen a few tips on how the internet works.......
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Afghanistan - Release of 65 prisoners vindicates Obama's policy of detainee transfer, HEH....
Afghanistan released 65 Taliban fighters from a former U.S. prison on Thursday despite strong objections from the US military, which says that the men will likely return to the battlefield to kill NATO and Afghan forces, the news media reported early Thursday.
Afghan prison spokesman Maj. Nimatullah Khaki told the AP that the prisoners were freed just after 9 a.m. They boarded a bus to leave the facility, laughing and smiling, he said.
Lieutenant General Ghulam Farouq, the head of the military police that runs the Bagram prison, told the AFP that the men "walked out of the facility and got into cars and headed off to their homes."
The U.S. military issued a statement late Wednesday, prior to the release of the prisoners, warning that, "Detainees from this group of 65 are directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel or civilians."
According to the AP, Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammad Zair Azimi refused to address the U.S. military's concerns. "Our responsibility is the protection of the prisoners. That is all," Azimi said.
The release had been ordered by President Hamid Karzai several weeks ago after the US [Obama administration] transferred control of the prison to the Afghan government, the AP noted.
Incidentally, media reports said at the time, that 88 prisoners were to be released. However, Fox News reported on Wednesday that Afghan President Hamid Karzai said last month "the country planned to release all but 16 of 88 prisoners that the United States believes pose a security threat." But ultimately, 65 prisoners were released on Thursday.
In any case, last month, I noted as follows:
Afghan prison spokesman Maj. Nimatullah Khaki told the AP that the prisoners were freed just after 9 a.m. They boarded a bus to leave the facility, laughing and smiling, he said.
Lieutenant General Ghulam Farouq, the head of the military police that runs the Bagram prison, told the AFP that the men "walked out of the facility and got into cars and headed off to their homes."
The U.S. military issued a statement late Wednesday, prior to the release of the prisoners, warning that, "Detainees from this group of 65 are directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel or civilians."
According to the AP, Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammad Zair Azimi refused to address the U.S. military's concerns. "Our responsibility is the protection of the prisoners. That is all," Azimi said.
The release had been ordered by President Hamid Karzai several weeks ago after the US [Obama administration] transferred control of the prison to the Afghan government, the AP noted.
Incidentally, media reports said at the time, that 88 prisoners were to be released. However, Fox News reported on Wednesday that Afghan President Hamid Karzai said last month "the country planned to release all but 16 of 88 prisoners that the United States believes pose a security threat." But ultimately, 65 prisoners were released on Thursday.
In any case, last month, I noted as follows:
US officials are reportedly unhappy with the Afghan government's recent announcement that it will soon release 88 prisoners from a jail that was recently transferred to Afghan control. However, I would assume that these US officials do not include members of the Obama administration since President Obama is a big fan of closing down US detention facilities and handing over the prisoners to foreign governments.
As the President recently explained in a statement issued upon signing a recent bill: "Since taking office, I have repeatedly called upon the Congress to work with my Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners... Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees... The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers."
President Obama is clearly a staunch advocate of handing over prisoners to foreign governments - despite the fact that these governments, at a later date, often free the prisoners. Hence, Mr. Obama can't possibly object to the Afghan government's latest plans. After all, it was Obama who steadfastly adhered to his own stated policies when he transferred over the aforementioned jail filled with prisoners to Afghan control - and now the Afghan government has simply decided to release these prisoners!
Hence, I must assume that members of the Obama administration are not among the US officials who are unhappy with the Afghan government's recent decision, but rather it is members of congress and the US military who have voiced their displeasure with the decision.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Limbaugh: Obama CRIMINALIZING business owners for LAWFULLY seeking his ILLEGAL Obamacare waiver
According to the latest Obamacare revision, business owners employing 100 or more employees can not reduce the size of their workforce unless they certify to the IRS - under penalty of perjury - that they are not laying off their employees merely to qualify for the latest Obamacare waiver that exempts companies employing less than 100 workers from providing their employees with health insurance until 2016.
For many business owners - even larger-sized business owners - the Obamacare mandate is an absolute nightmare that may put them out of business. And, while the Obamacare waiver - which essentially circumvents the health care law and its mandate - is illegal - according to many analysts - President Obama, paradoxically, is now CRIMINALIZING those who LAWFULLY seek to qualify for his ILLEGAL Obamacare waiver, as Andrew McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh both noted on Wednesday
Andrew McCarthy pointed out:
"To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear [to the IRS] that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.
"So now Obama, like a standard-issue leftist dictator, is complementing lawlessness with socialist irrationality.
"Think about how lunatic this is. There is nothing even faintly illegal about businesses' -- indeed, all economic actors' -- making financial decisions based on tax consequences. (And remember, notwithstanding Obama's misrepresentations to the contrary, Obamacare mandates are taxes -- as Obama's Justice Department argued and as Chief Justice Roberts & Co. concluded.) The tax consequences of Obamacare are profound -- that is precisely the reason that Obama is "waiving" them...
"What is illegal and irrational is not a company's commonsense deliberation over its costs, it is Obama's edict. And look what attends this one: criminal prosecution if Obama's Justice Department decides the business has falsely certified that its staffing decision was not motivated by Obamacare.
"Think about that for a second. The waiver is illegal. It flouts the language of the Obamacare statute, under which the employer mandate is required already to have been implemented by now. There is nothing in the law that empowers Obama to waive the mandate, much less to attach lawless conditions to such a lawless waiver...
"The payments required by the statute, after all, are owed to the public, not to Obama -- he's got no authority to deprive the government of these funds just because it would harm Democrats to collect them.
"Yet, Obama proclaims his illegal waiver with impunity -- Congress apparently unwilling to stop him. You, on the other hand, will be prosecuted for breaking the "law" if you do not comply to Obama's satisfaction with the illegal and irrational condition he has unilaterally placed on his illegal waiver.
"Got that?"
I got it, Andrew.
For many business owners - even larger-sized business owners - the Obamacare mandate is an absolute nightmare that may put them out of business. And, while the Obamacare waiver - which essentially circumvents the health care law and its mandate - is illegal - according to many analysts - President Obama, paradoxically, is now CRIMINALIZING those who LAWFULLY seek to qualify for his ILLEGAL Obamacare waiver, as Andrew McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh both noted on Wednesday
Andrew McCarthy pointed out:
"To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear [to the IRS] that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.
"So now Obama, like a standard-issue leftist dictator, is complementing lawlessness with socialist irrationality.
"Think about how lunatic this is. There is nothing even faintly illegal about businesses' -- indeed, all economic actors' -- making financial decisions based on tax consequences. (And remember, notwithstanding Obama's misrepresentations to the contrary, Obamacare mandates are taxes -- as Obama's Justice Department argued and as Chief Justice Roberts & Co. concluded.) The tax consequences of Obamacare are profound -- that is precisely the reason that Obama is "waiving" them...
"What is illegal and irrational is not a company's commonsense deliberation over its costs, it is Obama's edict. And look what attends this one: criminal prosecution if Obama's Justice Department decides the business has falsely certified that its staffing decision was not motivated by Obamacare.
"Think about that for a second. The waiver is illegal. It flouts the language of the Obamacare statute, under which the employer mandate is required already to have been implemented by now. There is nothing in the law that empowers Obama to waive the mandate, much less to attach lawless conditions to such a lawless waiver...
"The payments required by the statute, after all, are owed to the public, not to Obama -- he's got no authority to deprive the government of these funds just because it would harm Democrats to collect them.
"Yet, Obama proclaims his illegal waiver with impunity -- Congress apparently unwilling to stop him. You, on the other hand, will be prosecuted for breaking the "law" if you do not comply to Obama's satisfaction with the illegal and irrational condition he has unilaterally placed on his illegal waiver.
"Got that?"
I got it, Andrew.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Rouhani, Iranians make a mockery of "all options are on the table"
Iranians burn, and stamp on, an American flag during a peaceful rally this week, in celebration of the anniversary of the Iranian, Islamic revolutionAlthough the Obama administration has issued statements in the past asserting rather meekly and artificially that all options are on the table with regards to Iran's nuclear program, including a military option, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made a mockery of that notion during a rally Tuesday marking the anniversary of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution:
"If some have delusions of having any threats against Iran on their tables, they need to wear new glasses. There is no military option against Iran on any table in the world!" Rouhani said.
The crowd of fanatical Iranian regime loyalists attending the rally joined in on the fun.
Placards and banners handed out to the giddy crowd of celebrants read: "We are eager for the options on the table", a reference to the Obama administration's laughable and feeble statements regarding the so-called "options" on Iran's nuclear program. Other signs read: "We are ready for the great battle." “Death to the U.S.A."
However, although the Iranian regime loyalists seemed to relish the moment, they also seemed a bit impatient. And, for them to be impatient, is totally unwarranted, because ultimately time is on their side.
From here on, Iran's nuclear centrifuges will remain intact, as per the Obama administration's agreement with Iran. And, as one US nuclear expert has stated, even if Iran were to merely insert inert gas into the centrifuges, instead of uranium, they still could conduct extensive testing, and crucial design work, on their centrifuges - and thereby advance their nuclear aspirations.
The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, told a group of Iranian Air Force commanders on Monday: "Not only will the Islamic Republic of Iran not retreat in the nuclear technology arena, but it will work at a faster pace to boost the quality and application of this technology. The Iranian nuclear chief also said that, "In the area of nuclear research and development, we have not accepted any constraints and will continue our activities."
Mr. Salehi added that Iran can switch back its nuclear activities to their original state "in a matter of hours."
Indeed.
On Monday, Iran's Defense Minister announced that Iran has successfully test-fired two new missiles, including a radar-evading, long-range ballistic missile with an advanced fragmentation warhead.
Iran already possesses long-range surface-to-surface Shahab missiles with a range about 2,000 km (1,250 miles) that are capable of reaching Israel and U.S. military bases in the Middle East, Reuters noted.
Ballistic missiles can be used to deliver nuclear weapons.
Each passing day, Iran continues to procure and develop more and more advanced weaponry.
Hence, there's no need for the Iranian regime loyalists to be impatient and to get all antsy and restless; time is on their side; they just need to bide their time, kick back and chill, and, yes, relish the moment - which they already seem to be doing, albeit in antsy fashion.
Commenting on recent reports that Iran has sent a fleet of naval warships towards the U.S. maritime borders, a senior Iranian army official said Monday: “The world has been taken aback by the entrance of the Iranian fleet of warships in the Atlantic Ocean and this is one of the blessings of the Islamic Revolution.”
But I beg to differ with the Iranian army official, because while I, and others, were certainly taken aback by the fleet of Iranian naval warships approaching the U.S. maritime borders, I do not attribute this phenomenon to the Islamic Revolution, but rather I attribute it to President Obama.
Let me just say this to the Iranian army official: The good thing about the Obama's Presidency, for you guys, is that you can do whatever you want........
FOX News' Bret Baier explained the video clip above: "President Obama remarked on how presidents can do whatever they want. He and French President François Hollande were touring Monticello, the mountaintop home of Thomas Jefferson. The president wanted to walk out and break protocol by looking at the landscape."
"We're breaking protocol here," President Obama explained as he walked out on a terrace at Monticello. "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want."
Yep. But as far as the Iranians are concerned, the good thing about Obama being the US President is that THEY can do whatever THEY want........
Monday, February 10, 2014
Eyeing Midterm elections, President postpones ObamaCare employer mandate until 2016
Facing the prospect that Democratic lawmakers would lose seats in the 2014 midterm elections if businesses were to lay off workers in anticipation of the Obamacare employer mandate, which was set to go into effect in 2015, the Obama administration announced Monday that it is delaying the implementation of the employer mandate for medium-sized businesses until 2016.
This is the second time the Obama administration has delayed the mandate. Last summer the White House announced a one-year reprieve in the mandate pushing it back from 2014 to 2015. But apparently the President, and Democrats in congress who are up for reelection in 2014, concluded that this delay would not deter businesses from laying off employees in 2014 in preparation for the 2015 deadline. Hence, the President circumvented the provisions of the health care law once again and postponed the mandate until 2016 for companies with 50 to 99 employees - thereby removing a potential stumbling block for the midterm elections.
This is the second time the Obama administration has delayed the mandate. Last summer the White House announced a one-year reprieve in the mandate pushing it back from 2014 to 2015. But apparently the President, and Democrats in congress who are up for reelection in 2014, concluded that this delay would not deter businesses from laying off employees in 2014 in preparation for the 2015 deadline. Hence, the President circumvented the provisions of the health care law once again and postponed the mandate until 2016 for companies with 50 to 99 employees - thereby removing a potential stumbling block for the midterm elections.
Why is Iran assisting Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria? Here's why......
I've noted on several occasions the close ties that Iran has with al Qaeda. I've also noted that many of the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan received training, and arms, from Iran.
According to the [2004] 9/11 Commission report, many of the 9/11 hijackers were known to have traveled in and out of Iran prior to the 9/11 attacks. The report also noted that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda operatives to travel back and forth between Iran and Afghanistan [to their training camps], and that Iranian border agents were ordered not to stamp the passports of al Qaeda operatives, which thereby facilitated their travel, and also helped conceal their whereabouts and their identities.
In 2011, members of the 9/11 Commission testified that Iranian border agents refrained from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States. The 9/11 commission report also noted that al-Qaeda operatives had long maintained contact with Iranian intelligence officials.
Additionally, the Telegraph-UK reported in 2008 that a letter "signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, [then]-al-Qaeda's second in command - [which was] written after the American embassy in Yemen was attacked by simultaneous suicide car bombs - thanked the leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards for providing assistance to al-Qaeda to set up its terrorist network in Yemen."
"In the letter, al-Qaeda's leadership pays tribute to Iran's generosity, stating that without its 'monetary and infrastructure assistance' it would have not been possible for the group to carry out the terror attacks. It also thanked Iran for having the 'vision' to help the terror organization establish new bases in Yemen."
The AFP reported in December of 2010:
The US Department of Treasury announced last week that it had designated 3 officers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Qods Force as terrorists for their involvement in planning and executing terrorist attacks in Afghanistan.
The Treasury Department also announced the designation of Jafar al-Uzbeki, "a key Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator who supports al-Qaida’s vital facilitation network in Iran, that operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities." Al-Uzbeki provided "logistical support and funding to al-Qa’ida's Iran-based network" and he "has assisted extremists and operatives transiting Iran on their way into and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan." Al-Uzbeki "has provided visas and passports to numerous foreign fighters, including al-Qaida recruits, to facilitate their travel."
The US Department of Treasury report also notes that al Qaida's Iran-based network is assisting the Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria.
According to the report, "Al-Uzbeki also provided funding to Yasin al-Suri, who has resumed leadership of al-Qaida's Iran-based network. As head al-Qaida facilitator in Iran, Yasin al-Suri is responsible for overseeing al-Qaida efforts to transfer experienced operatives and leaders from Pakistan to Syria, organizing and maintaining routes by which new recruits can travel to Syria..., and assisting in the movement of al-Qaida external operatives to the West."
"Al-Qaida’s network in Iran has facilitated the transfer of funds... to al-Qaida core and other affiliated elements, including the al-Nusrah Front in Syria..."
The question, however, arises: Despite the close ties between Iran and al-Qaeda - the one country in which the two sides are at odds is Syria. Although Iran is eagerly assisting al Qaeda in its efforts to subvert the governments of various countries around the globe - Syria is the exception, due to the fact that Iran relies heavily on the Syrian regime's support. Moreover, with regards to the current fighting in Syria, Iran has openly proclaimed their support for Bashar Assad and the Syrian regime.
Hence, the question arises: Why is Iran assisting the [al-Qaeda] al-Nusrah front in Syria?
I will proffer two explanations to solve this quandary. Both explanations might be correct, but I believe the second explanation is more on the mark:
1) There is no guarantee that Syrian President Bashar Assad will remain in power - although his hold on power seems to get stronger each passing day. Nevertheless, there might ultimately be a power sharing agreement between the the current government and the rebel forces - or perhaps the current government and its affiliates will be completely removed from power. Either way, the Iranian regime is seeking to ensure that the al Qaeda-linked rebels, and not the western-backed rebels, are the dominant power within the rebel forces. This will ensure that a Syrian government comprised of the rebel forces will never become an ally to the West, but rather an Iranian ally, or an Iranian proxy. But ultimately the Iranian regime is standing behind the Syrian regime; it is merely lending some assistance to the al Qaeda rebels for the reason I just cited: to strengthen the extremists within the rebel forces and to ensure that Iran' does not lose its influence in Syria and that the west never gains influence in Syria.
2) The Iranian regime is seeking to ensure that the Al Qaeda-linked rebels, and not the western-backed rebels, are the dominant power within the rebel forces because this will both dissuade and deter the west from backing the rebels. Hence, although the Iranian regime and its Qods forces are completely supportive of the Assad regime, the Iranian regime has decided to lend some assistance to the [al-Qaeda] al-Nusrah front in order to weaken the position of the more moderate rebels and to deter the west from backing the rebel forces.
And now you know the rest of the story............
It is worthy to note that despite Iran's well-documented ties to al Qaeda, President Obama is nevertheless befriending the Iranian regime, al Qaeda's close ally - which might leave some scratching their heads in bewilderment, and others nodding their heads [in disgust], totally unsurprised..........
According to the [2004] 9/11 Commission report, many of the 9/11 hijackers were known to have traveled in and out of Iran prior to the 9/11 attacks. The report also noted that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda operatives to travel back and forth between Iran and Afghanistan [to their training camps], and that Iranian border agents were ordered not to stamp the passports of al Qaeda operatives, which thereby facilitated their travel, and also helped conceal their whereabouts and their identities.
In 2011, members of the 9/11 Commission testified that Iranian border agents refrained from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States. The 9/11 commission report also noted that al-Qaeda operatives had long maintained contact with Iranian intelligence officials.
Additionally, the Telegraph-UK reported in 2008 that a letter "signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, [then]-al-Qaeda's second in command - [which was] written after the American embassy in Yemen was attacked by simultaneous suicide car bombs - thanked the leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards for providing assistance to al-Qaeda to set up its terrorist network in Yemen."
"In the letter, al-Qaeda's leadership pays tribute to Iran's generosity, stating that without its 'monetary and infrastructure assistance' it would have not been possible for the group to carry out the terror attacks. It also thanked Iran for having the 'vision' to help the terror organization establish new bases in Yemen."
The AFP reported in December of 2010:
A member of the elite al-Quds force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been captured in southern Afghanistan accused of cross-border weapons smuggling... British newspaper The Times reported that Iran has released a string of senior Al-Qaeda militants from custody so they can help the network rebuild in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas.Among the numerous reports detailing Iran's support to the Afghan insurgency was the following report from Fox News:
The newspaper quoted anonymous Pakistani and Middle Eastern officials accusing Iran of giving covert support to the Islamist militants, often through the Revolutionary Guards...
The discovery of a weapons cache in western Afghanistan has raised concerns that Iran is interfering in the war-torn country, much like it did in Iraq, by supplying weapons used to attack and kill U.S. and coalition troops.The State Department noted in one of its annual reports on terrorism:
Afghan and NATO forces uncovered the weapons cache on Aug. 29 in Herat. It included a small number of Iranian-made "explosively formed penetrators," hyper-powerful roadside bombs similar to the weapons used to kill U.S. forces in Iraq, a senior U.S. Defense Official told FOX News.
Also seized during the raid were 107 Iranian-made BM-1 rockets and dozens of blocks of Iranian C4 plastic explosives...
Iran’s IRGC Qods Force provided assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Qods Force provided training to the Taliban on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives....In short, Iran's ties to Al Qaeda and to the Iraqi and Afghan insurgency has been well-documented. Which leads us to the following report that the US Department of Treasury released last week about "al-Qaida's Iran network" and "a key Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator."
The US Department of Treasury announced last week that it had designated 3 officers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Qods Force as terrorists for their involvement in planning and executing terrorist attacks in Afghanistan.
The Treasury Department also announced the designation of Jafar al-Uzbeki, "a key Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator who supports al-Qaida’s vital facilitation network in Iran, that operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities." Al-Uzbeki provided "logistical support and funding to al-Qa’ida's Iran-based network" and he "has assisted extremists and operatives transiting Iran on their way into and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan." Al-Uzbeki "has provided visas and passports to numerous foreign fighters, including al-Qaida recruits, to facilitate their travel."
The US Department of Treasury report also notes that al Qaida's Iran-based network is assisting the Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria.
According to the report, "Al-Uzbeki also provided funding to Yasin al-Suri, who has resumed leadership of al-Qaida's Iran-based network. As head al-Qaida facilitator in Iran, Yasin al-Suri is responsible for overseeing al-Qaida efforts to transfer experienced operatives and leaders from Pakistan to Syria, organizing and maintaining routes by which new recruits can travel to Syria..., and assisting in the movement of al-Qaida external operatives to the West."
"Al-Qaida’s network in Iran has facilitated the transfer of funds... to al-Qaida core and other affiliated elements, including the al-Nusrah Front in Syria..."
The question, however, arises: Despite the close ties between Iran and al-Qaeda - the one country in which the two sides are at odds is Syria. Although Iran is eagerly assisting al Qaeda in its efforts to subvert the governments of various countries around the globe - Syria is the exception, due to the fact that Iran relies heavily on the Syrian regime's support. Moreover, with regards to the current fighting in Syria, Iran has openly proclaimed their support for Bashar Assad and the Syrian regime.
Hence, the question arises: Why is Iran assisting the [al-Qaeda] al-Nusrah front in Syria?
I will proffer two explanations to solve this quandary. Both explanations might be correct, but I believe the second explanation is more on the mark:
1) There is no guarantee that Syrian President Bashar Assad will remain in power - although his hold on power seems to get stronger each passing day. Nevertheless, there might ultimately be a power sharing agreement between the the current government and the rebel forces - or perhaps the current government and its affiliates will be completely removed from power. Either way, the Iranian regime is seeking to ensure that the al Qaeda-linked rebels, and not the western-backed rebels, are the dominant power within the rebel forces. This will ensure that a Syrian government comprised of the rebel forces will never become an ally to the West, but rather an Iranian ally, or an Iranian proxy. But ultimately the Iranian regime is standing behind the Syrian regime; it is merely lending some assistance to the al Qaeda rebels for the reason I just cited: to strengthen the extremists within the rebel forces and to ensure that Iran' does not lose its influence in Syria and that the west never gains influence in Syria.
2) The Iranian regime is seeking to ensure that the Al Qaeda-linked rebels, and not the western-backed rebels, are the dominant power within the rebel forces because this will both dissuade and deter the west from backing the rebels. Hence, although the Iranian regime and its Qods forces are completely supportive of the Assad regime, the Iranian regime has decided to lend some assistance to the [al-Qaeda] al-Nusrah front in order to weaken the position of the more moderate rebels and to deter the west from backing the rebel forces.
And now you know the rest of the story............
It is worthy to note that despite Iran's well-documented ties to al Qaeda, President Obama is nevertheless befriending the Iranian regime, al Qaeda's close ally - which might leave some scratching their heads in bewilderment, and others nodding their heads [in disgust], totally unsurprised..........
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Afghan civilian casualties spike
The number of women killed and wounded in Afghanistan in 2013 rose 36% percent from the year before, according to a UN report released Saturday. The number of Afghan children who were killed and wounded jumped 34%.
Overall, there was a 14% increase in the number of Afghan civilians who were killed and wounded in 2013.
The UN report noted that the spike in civilian casualties was due to the “changing dynamics of the conflict” as NATO handed over security duties to the Afghans, thereby facilitating President Obama's so-called exit strategy.
Overall, there was a 14% increase in the number of Afghan civilians who were killed and wounded in 2013.
The UN report noted that the spike in civilian casualties was due to the “changing dynamics of the conflict” as NATO handed over security duties to the Afghans, thereby facilitating President Obama's so-called exit strategy.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Obama offers a token & perfunctory prayer for Abandoned American Pastor Saeed Abedini - National Prayer Breakfast
During the annual National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, President Obama offered a perfunctory and token prayer for Saeed Abedini, the abandoned American pastor who's been languishing in an Iranian jail cell for the last 18 months.
"We pray for Pastor Saeed Abedini," Obama said. "He's been held in Iran for more than 18 months."
Over the last several years, a number of American citizens have been thrown into various prisons in Iran and elsewhere. And sadly, those heads of states [ahem...] who have the power to obtain the release of these detainees have made very little effort to do so [ahem...], which has compelled a handful of valiant US lawmakers, and others, to speak out, and to take action, on their behalf.
In January of this year, it was reported that Saeed Abedini had been "throwing up on a regular basis and... experiencing significant pain in his abdomen. The prison doctor recommended that he receive surgery... Pastor Saeed sustained internal injuries from beatings he endured in [the notorious] Evin prison early in his imprisonment. Those injuries have gone largely untreated."
However, although Abedini - as well as a number of other American prisoners - have been heartlessly and callously abandoned by their government, President Obama, nevertheless, offered a token and perfunctory prayer on the pastor's behalf.
But ultimately, in light of the huge and perilous concessions that Iran has received from the White House, it's hard to imagine that Mr. Abedini will remain in prison much longer - unless the White House intervenes with the Iranian authorities and requests more prison time for Mr. Abedini. No doubt, that request would be warmly received by the Iranian government, and would serve as a small, but friendly gesture toward a benevolent regime that was, and always will be, a beacon for human rights.......
"We pray for Pastor Saeed Abedini," Obama said. "He's been held in Iran for more than 18 months."
Over the last several years, a number of American citizens have been thrown into various prisons in Iran and elsewhere. And sadly, those heads of states [ahem...] who have the power to obtain the release of these detainees have made very little effort to do so [ahem...], which has compelled a handful of valiant US lawmakers, and others, to speak out, and to take action, on their behalf.
In January of this year, it was reported that Saeed Abedini had been "throwing up on a regular basis and... experiencing significant pain in his abdomen. The prison doctor recommended that he receive surgery... Pastor Saeed sustained internal injuries from beatings he endured in [the notorious] Evin prison early in his imprisonment. Those injuries have gone largely untreated."
However, although Abedini - as well as a number of other American prisoners - have been heartlessly and callously abandoned by their government, President Obama, nevertheless, offered a token and perfunctory prayer on the pastor's behalf.
But ultimately, in light of the huge and perilous concessions that Iran has received from the White House, it's hard to imagine that Mr. Abedini will remain in prison much longer - unless the White House intervenes with the Iranian authorities and requests more prison time for Mr. Abedini. No doubt, that request would be warmly received by the Iranian government, and would serve as a small, but friendly gesture toward a benevolent regime that was, and always will be, a beacon for human rights.......
Monday, February 3, 2014
Hope & Change: 8% spike in the number of Americans who hope Obama's policies will fail, who share Limbaugh's sentiment
In January of 2009, conservative talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, told his radio audience that a major American print publication asked him and a handful of other prominent individuals to write a 400 word essay on their hope for the Obama presidency. Limbaugh went on to tell his audience: "I'm thinking of replying [to the print publication], 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.' "
Limbaugh's remarks have received a heavy dose of criticism from the White House and its allies in the mainstream media. However, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, over the last twelve months, there has been an 8-12% spike in the number of Americans who've begun to see the light and who now share Mr. Limbaugh's sentiment.
In January of 2013, when CNN/ORC poll respondents were asked the following question: "In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?" 70% said they hope the President's policies will succeed, 26% said they hope his policies will fail, 2% had mixed feelings, and 1% had no opinion on the matter. [Of course, these favorable poll numbers, were from CNN, a Liberal news media outlet]. However, in January and February of 2014, just one year later, when CNN/ORC poll respondents were asked the very same question, only 58% said they hope the President's policies will succeed, 34% said they hope his policies will fail, 5% had mixed feelings, and 2% had no opinion on the matter. That's an 8% spike in the number of Americans who hope Obama's policies will fail, and a 12% decline in the number of Americans who hope Obama's policies will succeed.
Barack Obama has always preached the message of "hope", but for many Americans the only hope they have right now for their future is the hope that Obama, and his policies, will fail.
An 8-12% change and spike in the poll numbers; that's "change you can believe in"; that's "Hope" and "Change", all wrapped up in one.
When CNN/ORC poll respondents were asked in the latest poll whether they "think it is more likely that Obama's policies will succeed or more likely that his policies will fail?" 37% said they think it is more likely that his policies will succeed, 56% said they think it is more likely that his policies will fail.
When the CNN/ORC poll respondents were asked "how much of President Obama’s [State of the Union] speech did you happen to hear or watch -- all of the speech, some of it, only a little, or none at all?" 16% said they heard all of it, 17% said they heard some of it, 14% said they heard only a little, and 52% said they didn't hear any of the speech at all.
Obama is sparking a nuclear race
President Obama has often stated that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. Of course, the problem goes much deeper than that, but nevertheless that is the concern he typically raises about Iran's nuclear program. But ironically, it is Obama who is triggering this tide of nuclear enrichment and sparking this nuclear arms race in the region by giving Iran the green light to enrich uranium.
Until now, countries, the likes of Saudi Arabia, were reluctant to embark on a nuclear enrichment program, for two reasons. Firstly, they did not feel the urgent need for such a program. Secondly, and more importantly, they feared the backlash and ire they would face if they were to embark on such a program.
However, now that President Obama has officially authorized Iran's nuclear enrichment program, both of the aforementioned reasons are obsolete.
Countries the likes of Saudi Arabia, now believe they must initiate their own nuclear programs to counter the Iranian nuclear program that has been officially endorsed and authorized by President Obama - a program they once believed would be stopped. Moreover, they no longer fear the ire or the potential backlash from launching their own nuclear enrichment programs because President Obama has officially authorized and given the green light to all interested parties to launch their own enrichment programs.
Hence, the Times-UK reported on Sunday that:
Until now, countries, the likes of Saudi Arabia, were reluctant to embark on a nuclear enrichment program, for two reasons. Firstly, they did not feel the urgent need for such a program. Secondly, and more importantly, they feared the backlash and ire they would face if they were to embark on such a program.
However, now that President Obama has officially authorized Iran's nuclear enrichment program, both of the aforementioned reasons are obsolete.
Countries the likes of Saudi Arabia, now believe they must initiate their own nuclear programs to counter the Iranian nuclear program that has been officially endorsed and authorized by President Obama - a program they once believed would be stopped. Moreover, they no longer fear the ire or the potential backlash from launching their own nuclear enrichment programs because President Obama has officially authorized and given the green light to all interested parties to launch their own enrichment programs.
Hence, the Times-UK reported on Sunday that:
A senior member of Saudi Arabia’s Royal Family has warned of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East if Iran retains key elements of its atomic program under a deal with the West.Yep, sadly it is Obama who is guilty of triggering a nuclear avalanche.
Prince Turki al-Faisal said that Arab countries would demand the right to enrich uranium if, as expected, Iran is allowed to pursue a civil nuclear energy program... The kingdom's former spy chief questioned whether Iran's nuclear ambitions has truly changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)