A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Obama's health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck."
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.
Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law... Polls show that Americans remain confused by the complex law, and even many uninsured people are skeptical they will be helped by benefits that start next year...
While some other Democratic lawmakers have privately voiced similar frustrations, most have "publicly" lauded Sebelius for her department's work...
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Key Obamacare author, Max Baucus, warns of "huge train wreck" implementing ObamaCare provisions
From the AP:
Monday, April 15, 2013
Obama: 'Make no mistake', Boston Marathon, Benghazi attackers will feel full weight of justice - Ahem....
Mistake or no mistake, that is the question.......
Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, President Obama told reporters that no one should make the mistake of assuming the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing attacks will escape justice.
"Make no mistake," the President said, "we will get to the bottom of this. And we will find out who did this.... Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice."
Similarly, on the day after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, President Obama stated that no one should make the mistake of thinking the perpetrators of the attacks would escape justice.
"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack...," Obama said. He added: "Make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."
Sadly, many Americans fell prey to the President's rhetoric, and made the foolish mistake of believing him when he said he would bring justice to the Benghazi terrorists.
Nevertheless, bringing justice to terrorists who target Americans inside the U.S requires far less fortitude, and far less guts, than bringing justice to terrorists who target Americans abroad, especially when the latter are Libyan rebels, the very same rebels who were propped up by this administration.
Hence, this time might be different......
Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, President Obama told reporters that no one should make the mistake of assuming the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing attacks will escape justice.
"Make no mistake," the President said, "we will get to the bottom of this. And we will find out who did this.... Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice."
Similarly, on the day after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, President Obama stated that no one should make the mistake of thinking the perpetrators of the attacks would escape justice.
"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack...," Obama said. He added: "Make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."
Sadly, many Americans fell prey to the President's rhetoric, and made the foolish mistake of believing him when he said he would bring justice to the Benghazi terrorists.
Nevertheless, bringing justice to terrorists who target Americans inside the U.S requires far less fortitude, and far less guts, than bringing justice to terrorists who target Americans abroad, especially when the latter are Libyan rebels, the very same rebels who were propped up by this administration.
Hence, this time might be different......
Saturday, April 13, 2013
U.S. wrestling team to confront Iran in Obama's stead? Heh.......
In the face of Iran's global terror campaign - including an Iranian backed "terrorist cell" in Bahrain that was recently nabbed while planning to target military sites and public figures inside the country - President Obama has continuously reassured the Iranian regime that he will not meddle in its internal affairs and that he will make every effort to ensure that the regime remains safely ensconced in power.
However, with Obama giving the Mullahs his word of honor that "regime change" will never happen, the regime can continue waging its global terror campaign with impunity.
Consequently, it has now fallen upon the U.S. wrestling team to confront Iran in Obama's stead.
The AP reported on Friday that the United States will host Iran and Russia in a wrestling exhibition in New York City next month.
U.S. wrestling officials said the Iranian national team, as well as the Russian national team, will face off against the Americans in Grand Central Terminal on May 15. Iran hasn't wrestled in the U.S. since the 2003 world championships. [But of course, with Obama, anything is possible, heh....]
It should be noted that these athletes do not necessarily espouse the views of their respective leaders, but I figured, 'what the heck', why not use an interesting news item to bring out a point.
In 2009, when mass protests broke out in Iran after the Iranian Presidential election - which many believed was fixed in favor of the hardliners - President Obama refused to lend his support to the protesters because, as he explained at the time, "It is not productive... to be seen as meddling - the U.S. president meddling - in Iranian elections."
Likewise, on November 4, 2009, the White House released a statement in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the seizing of the American Embassy in Tehran, stating: “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community.”
I noted at the time that Obama wasn't the only world leader who chose not to meddle in Iran's internal affairs after the 2009 Presidential election. Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, apparently taking his cue from Obama, expressed a similar position on Iran's Presidential election:
"Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's internal affairs...," said Qassem. "We don't side with anyone. This is an internal Iranian issue."
Hezbollah apparently agreed with Obama's position.......
However, as I noted back in February:
Just kidding.........
However, with Obama giving the Mullahs his word of honor that "regime change" will never happen, the regime can continue waging its global terror campaign with impunity.
Consequently, it has now fallen upon the U.S. wrestling team to confront Iran in Obama's stead.
The AP reported on Friday that the United States will host Iran and Russia in a wrestling exhibition in New York City next month.
U.S. wrestling officials said the Iranian national team, as well as the Russian national team, will face off against the Americans in Grand Central Terminal on May 15. Iran hasn't wrestled in the U.S. since the 2003 world championships. [But of course, with Obama, anything is possible, heh....]
It should be noted that these athletes do not necessarily espouse the views of their respective leaders, but I figured, 'what the heck', why not use an interesting news item to bring out a point.
In 2009, when mass protests broke out in Iran after the Iranian Presidential election - which many believed was fixed in favor of the hardliners - President Obama refused to lend his support to the protesters because, as he explained at the time, "It is not productive... to be seen as meddling - the U.S. president meddling - in Iranian elections."
Likewise, on November 4, 2009, the White House released a statement in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the seizing of the American Embassy in Tehran, stating: “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community.”
I noted at the time that Obama wasn't the only world leader who chose not to meddle in Iran's internal affairs after the 2009 Presidential election. Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, apparently taking his cue from Obama, expressed a similar position on Iran's Presidential election:
"Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's internal affairs...," said Qassem. "We don't side with anyone. This is an internal Iranian issue."
Hezbollah apparently agreed with Obama's position.......
However, as I noted back in February:
"President Obama has continuously reassured the Iranian government that he is not seeking, and will not seek, regime change in Iran; Chuck Hagel strongly advocates the same policy. And this is indeed the correct path to take, for only a non-meddling policy on Obama's part, that ensures there will be no regime change in Iran, will afford the Iranian government the opportunity to further engage in their peaceful terrorist activities......."Nevertheless, Obama might have finally decided to alter his pacifist approach with Iran by flexing a little bit of muscle at his Iranian counterparts via the U.S. wrestling team...... Heh........
Ahem......
Just kidding.........
Sunday, April 7, 2013
700 retired military special ops urge Congress to establish a select committee on Benghazi
Seven hundred retired Military Special Operations officers sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives urging them to support H.Res 36, which calls for the establishment of a House Select Committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
"The undersigned are a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans...," the letter begins. "We have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi."
"It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries," the letter states. "Many questions have not been answered thus far."
The letter lists roughly 16 questions, at a minimum, that the House Select Committee needs to address.
"The undersigned are a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans...," the letter begins. "We have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi."
"It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries," the letter states. "Many questions have not been answered thus far."
The letter lists roughly 16 questions, at a minimum, that the House Select Committee needs to address.
Obama to cap IRAs to pay off 0.05625% of the federal deficit, heh......
During the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary debate in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama revealed the true motive behind his tax hike initiatives: It has nothing to do with revenue, but rather it's all about punishing those with a higher income.
The Moderator, Charlie Gibson, asked Obama: "You... said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, 'I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.' It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
Obama replied: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness... Part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. I... want to make sure... that our tax system is fair."
Statistics have shown in the past that an increase in tax rates brings in less tax revenue. Nevertheless, Obama is not the least bit fazed by these statistics as long as he punishes those who've earned a little more than he can stomach.
Hence, the following news item from The Hill should come as no surprise to anyone - especially to those who are familiar with Obama's mindset and his convoluted way of thinking:
But of course, as Obama explained so elegantly in 2008: It's not about bringing in revenue. It's "for purposes of fairness."
"I want to make sure that our tax system is fair." Heh............
The Moderator, Charlie Gibson, asked Obama: "You... said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, 'I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.' It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
Obama replied: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness... Part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. I... want to make sure... that our tax system is fair."
Statistics have shown in the past that an increase in tax rates brings in less tax revenue. Nevertheless, Obama is not the least bit fazed by these statistics as long as he punishes those who've earned a little more than he can stomach.
Hence, the following news item from The Hill should come as no surprise to anyone - especially to those who are familiar with Obama's mindset and his convoluted way of thinking:
President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts...Take note of the second paragraph:
The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.
The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement...
The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade [$900 million a year], a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.As others have already pointed out: That's $900 million a year - $9 billion over a decade - which will cut a teeny, indiscernible and undetectable speck of Obama's massive $16 trillion deficit - roughly 0.05625% of the deficit, or 1⁄1777 of the deficit, over a 10-year period. Heh....
But of course, as Obama explained so elegantly in 2008: It's not about bringing in revenue. It's "for purposes of fairness."
"I want to make sure that our tax system is fair." Heh............
General Dempsey: Taliban Likely to remain Long-Term Threat in Afghanistan after Obama's capitulation strategy is consummated
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the AP on Sunday that the Taliban will likely remain a military threat in some parts of Afghanistan long after U.S. troops complete their combat mission next year.
Dempsey also said that by May or June of 2012, as Western troops pull back from Afghanistan, the Afghan military will assume the lead combat role throughout the country.
Asked whether some parts of the country will remain contested by the Taliban, Dempsey replied, "Yes, of course there will be."
However, while Dempsey only offered up a partial, and begrudging, acknowledgment of the Taliban threat post-2014, New York Times Washington correspondent, David Sanger - author of a book, which discusses among other things, the Obama administration's handling of the Afghan War - was a bit more candid, and forthcoming, with his assessment of the Taliban threat and Obama's Afghan strategy in a 2012 interview.
Sanger told CNN that one of the President's goals in Afghanistan is to keep the [Capital] city of Kabul from falling, but, he said, this "does not necessarily mean that other parts of the country might not fall into Taliban control."
Sanger added: "It seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of the country that are significantly under Taliban control."
However, while I, admittedly, am no expert in these matters, nevertheless, as an outsider, who is neither affiliated with the Obama administration nor the mainstream-Obama media, I am willing to be even more candid and forthcoming with my assessment of the Taliban and the future of Afghanistan.
Taking into account the recent attacks by the Taliban in the heart of Kabul, the Capital City of Afghanistan - including a suicide bombing outside the Afghan Defense Ministry in central Kabul that left nine people dead - I believe it is highly likely that the current Afghan government will fall and that the Taliban will ultimately assume control of the entire country, or, at the very, very least, wreak havoc, chaos and destruction upon the entire country.
In a separate interview on Sunday, Gen. Dempsey was asked whether he is concerned that Syria could become another Afghanistan.
"I do. I have grave concerns that Syria could become an extended conflict" that drags on for many years, he said.
Video: David Sanger interview - 2012:
Dempsey also said that by May or June of 2012, as Western troops pull back from Afghanistan, the Afghan military will assume the lead combat role throughout the country.
Asked whether some parts of the country will remain contested by the Taliban, Dempsey replied, "Yes, of course there will be."
However, while Dempsey only offered up a partial, and begrudging, acknowledgment of the Taliban threat post-2014, New York Times Washington correspondent, David Sanger - author of a book, which discusses among other things, the Obama administration's handling of the Afghan War - was a bit more candid, and forthcoming, with his assessment of the Taliban threat and Obama's Afghan strategy in a 2012 interview.
Sanger told CNN that one of the President's goals in Afghanistan is to keep the [Capital] city of Kabul from falling, but, he said, this "does not necessarily mean that other parts of the country might not fall into Taliban control."
Sanger added: "It seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of the country that are significantly under Taliban control."
However, while I, admittedly, am no expert in these matters, nevertheless, as an outsider, who is neither affiliated with the Obama administration nor the mainstream-Obama media, I am willing to be even more candid and forthcoming with my assessment of the Taliban and the future of Afghanistan.
Taking into account the recent attacks by the Taliban in the heart of Kabul, the Capital City of Afghanistan - including a suicide bombing outside the Afghan Defense Ministry in central Kabul that left nine people dead - I believe it is highly likely that the current Afghan government will fall and that the Taliban will ultimately assume control of the entire country, or, at the very, very least, wreak havoc, chaos and destruction upon the entire country.
In a separate interview on Sunday, Gen. Dempsey was asked whether he is concerned that Syria could become another Afghanistan.
"I do. I have grave concerns that Syria could become an extended conflict" that drags on for many years, he said.
Video: David Sanger interview - 2012:
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Obama says Kamala Harris is "the best-looking AG", but not a "SWEETIE"?
During a Democratic National Committee fundraising lunch in Atherton, California on Thursday, President Obama opined that California Attorney General Kamala Harris is "by far the best-looking attorney general", which prompted criticism from supporters on the left, who believe he had crossed the line, and from critics on the right, who contend that a Republican President, speaking in similar fashion, would never receive the same kind of pass from the mainstream media.
White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters at a press briefing on Friday that the President called Harris on Thursday night to "apologize for the distraction created by his comments."
When pressed further on the issue, Carney said, "Look, I think I made clear, [the President] apologized for creating this distraction..."
Later on, during the press briefing, a reporter asked Carney: "Jay, just to follow up on Harris - twice you said that the President apologized for the distraction. Does he not think that the remark was sexist?"
"Well, he apologized for the remark," said Carney. "And they’re old friends..."
"So he acknowledges it was inappropriate?" the reporter asked.
Carney parried: "[The President] has known her for a long time and he apologized for it, and he certainly regretted that it caused the distraction..."
"You seem to make a distinction," the reporter responded.
Carney replied: "No. I’m making clear, I think, that [the President] apologized for it and believes that she is a superb Attorney General for the state of California..."
The President and Vice President, in various speeches and remarks over the last several years, have evinced a bizarre preoccupation, and strange obsession, with good looks. Nevertheless, while Obama's latest remarks - about Kamala Harris - might be somewhat crude, unrefined and unpresidential, I wouldn't necessarily say he stepped over the line.
However, when he addresses both, female factory employees and female reporters as "SWEETIES", well.........
White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters at a press briefing on Friday that the President called Harris on Thursday night to "apologize for the distraction created by his comments."
When pressed further on the issue, Carney said, "Look, I think I made clear, [the President] apologized for creating this distraction..."
Later on, during the press briefing, a reporter asked Carney: "Jay, just to follow up on Harris - twice you said that the President apologized for the distraction. Does he not think that the remark was sexist?"
"Well, he apologized for the remark," said Carney. "And they’re old friends..."
"So he acknowledges it was inappropriate?" the reporter asked.
Carney parried: "[The President] has known her for a long time and he apologized for it, and he certainly regretted that it caused the distraction..."
"You seem to make a distinction," the reporter responded.
Carney replied: "No. I’m making clear, I think, that [the President] apologized for it and believes that she is a superb Attorney General for the state of California..."
The President and Vice President, in various speeches and remarks over the last several years, have evinced a bizarre preoccupation, and strange obsession, with good looks. Nevertheless, while Obama's latest remarks - about Kamala Harris - might be somewhat crude, unrefined and unpresidential, I wouldn't necessarily say he stepped over the line.
However, when he addresses both, female factory employees and female reporters as "SWEETIES", well.........
Afghans fleeing country ahead of Obama's 2014 deadline
From NBC News:
From the Washington Post - January 30, 2013:
As tens of thousands of American troops prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan in time for the 2014 deadline set by the White House, another exodus is gathering pace: Afghans fleeing their country’s violence and economic uncertainty.And the Washington Post reported earlier this year that, in 2012, at least 50,000 Afghans fled to Europe and Australia, more than twice as many as in 2011.
“The international community is leaving and we are right behind them,” Khalid Gul, a 23-year-old university student, said...
“If Americans – the soldiers and the troops – leave here we will have no proper security and we will have the Taliban here again,” Shorab Shinwari, a 21-year-old IT expert, said...
“Fear of instability in 2014 is driving emigration of the very people and money that could prevent instability,” STATT, an NGO that does research and polling, said in its January 2013 Afghan Migration in Flux report. “Most foresee a future of conflict, instability and chaos as fait accompli for the country.”...
Some Afghans scrambling to get out any way they can are paying $30,000 to $50,000 on the black market for fake passports and passage to another country, an exorbitant sum in a country where average annual income is estimated to be under the $500 a year...
Afghans already make up the biggest refugee population in the world at almost 3 million, with waves having left during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and again during the country’s civil war a decade later...
Some 5.7 million Afghans returned in the first few years after the 2001 U.S.-led intervention that toppled the Taliban regime, hopeful that living conditions in their country were improving...
[But] the tide of migrants shifted again. In 2011, more people fled Afghanistan than in any other year since the start of the decade-long war...
From the Washington Post - January 30, 2013:
Two decades after Afghanistan witnessed one of the 20th century's most dramatic refugee crises, a quieter exodus is gaining momentum. Last year, at least 50,000 Afghans fled to Europe and Australia, more than twice as many as in 2011.
The flight reflects a growing fear that security will worsen after NATO's military withdrawal by the end of 2014, a date that has taken on near-apocalyptic symbolism in parts of the country.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Disingenuous Jay Carney blames Republicans for supposedly allowing budget sequester to occur
During a press briefing on Friday, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, upbraided Republican lawmakers for supposedly allowing the budget sequestration to occur. Of course, Mr. Carney knows full well that a number of Republican lawmakers actually tried to undo the sequester and that President Obama threatened to veto any effort to rescind the aforementioned automatic budget cuts - and that sequestration was actually Obama's wacky brainchild.
Par for the course.......
Par for the course.......
US economy adds fewest jobs in 9 months; Percentage of Americans working or looking for jobs lowest in nearly 34 years
US employers added just 88,000 jobs in March, the fewest in nine months and less than half of what many economists were expecting, the AP reported on Friday.
Economists were anticipating an increase of 190,000 jobs in March.
The unemployment rate fell to 7.6% from 7.7% in March, the AP reported, but that was only because more people stopped searching for jobs. People who are out of a job are no longer counted as unemployed once they stop searching for employment. The percentage of Americans working or looking for jobs fell to 63.3 percent in March, the lowest percentage in nearly 34 years - since 1979.
Some Obama loyalists are desperately trying to assign blame for the bad job numbers on the "sequester" - which was actually Obama's wacky brainchild - but, as the Wall Street Journal points out: "you won’t find much evidence of that in the latest jobs report."
"The federal government’s civilian workforce fell by just 2,000 in March apart from almost 12,000 cuts at the U.S. Postal Service, which of course has a different set of problems," the Journal noted. "State-government jobs rose by 9,000... and local-government employment dipped by just 2,000 jobs."
So, blaming sequestration is just a cop-out, a worn-out ploy used by the left-wing propagandists as part of their never-ending campaign to prop up a failed and hopelessly inept Presidency.
Economists were anticipating an increase of 190,000 jobs in March.
The unemployment rate fell to 7.6% from 7.7% in March, the AP reported, but that was only because more people stopped searching for jobs. People who are out of a job are no longer counted as unemployed once they stop searching for employment. The percentage of Americans working or looking for jobs fell to 63.3 percent in March, the lowest percentage in nearly 34 years - since 1979.
Some Obama loyalists are desperately trying to assign blame for the bad job numbers on the "sequester" - which was actually Obama's wacky brainchild - but, as the Wall Street Journal points out: "you won’t find much evidence of that in the latest jobs report."
"The federal government’s civilian workforce fell by just 2,000 in March apart from almost 12,000 cuts at the U.S. Postal Service, which of course has a different set of problems," the Journal noted. "State-government jobs rose by 9,000... and local-government employment dipped by just 2,000 jobs."
So, blaming sequestration is just a cop-out, a worn-out ploy used by the left-wing propagandists as part of their never-ending campaign to prop up a failed and hopelessly inept Presidency.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
U.S. contractor beaten and illegally detained in Afghanistan - Afghan Deputy AG's office requests $2.4 million ransom
From WAVY News:
A local contractor working on a project in Afghanistan was been beaten and detained Wednesday in Kabul.From the Virginia Pilot:
David Gordon, a diesel mechanic for Tamerlane Global Services, Inc. based in Reston, Va., was arrested by local police officers and imprisoned without charges by orders of the Afghan Deputy Attorney General's Office.
The office is asking for $2.4 million in exchange for Gordon's release...
"He has been beaten, he has been slashed. We know he has had to get stitches, he has had some internal bleeding issues as well," Tamerlane CEO Jim O'Brien said.
Gordon was working on a project for the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency, tracking trucks delivering fuels to military bases in Afghanistan.
"[Gordon] was arbitrarily thrown into prison without charge," O'Brien said Thursday. "We believe this involves a business dispute that was currently in the federal courts in the U.S., one that is going well for Tamerlane, and not so well for the Afghan parties.”
Gordon, 38, is a contractor for Northern Virginia-based Tamerlane, working to stop the theft of fuel in Afghanistan. O'Brien said he learned of the incident from other workers and sent attorneys to check on Gordon in jail.
"They saw him crumpled in his cell with 12 other Afghans," O'Brien said...
Federal weapons prosecutions plummets under Obama, but ironically, Hadiya Pendleton's Mom is a big Obama fan - Go figure
In a February 19 blog post, entitled, Hadiya Pendleton - Liberals' "Go easy on crime & gun violence" policies responsible for teen's death, I noted that President Obama - in his typical politically calculated, phony fashion - used the parents of 15-year-old Chicago native, Hadiya Pendleton - who was shot and killed [in January] by two gang members - as a prop to 1) promote his gun control initiatives; 2) portray himself and his Democratic colleagues as the protectors of today's youth; 3) to depict the Republicans as the source of all evil who are responsible for the huge number of murders perpetrated against America's youth.
"Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight," Obama proclaimed during his State of the Union [propaganda] address. "They deserve a vote."
I noted that although Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams, the murderers who killed Hadiya, were gang members [part of the SUWU gang faction], and as such, would have likely obtained firearms regardless of any kind of gun legislation - nevertheless, 'were it not for the "go soft" on crime and gun violence attitude that Liberals hold so dearly to their hearts, Hadiya Pendleton would likely still be alive today.'
Michael Ward, the one who actually pulled the trigger and shot and killed Hadiya Pendleton, was convicted of a weapons charge in 2012, and he pleaded guilty to Aggravated Unlawful Use Of A Weapon, a felony punishable by 1 to 3 years imprisonment in the state of Illinois. But Ward never went to prison for the aforementioned conviction because of a state law that mandates a "go soft attitude" towards offenders under the age of 18; Ward was 17-years old at the time of the offense.
It would have been impossible for Michael Ward to gun down Hadiya Pendleton from his prison cell. But sadly, he never went to jail. Ward was also arrested three times while on probation for his gun conviction but never went to prison. That's right, he violated his probation three times before he gunned down Hadiya, but only one violation was ever reported to the judge.
I also noted via Judicial Watch, as follows:
Last fall the Obama administration quietly shut down a crucial FBI division—National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC)—dedicated to countering gang violence. The alarming move came at a time when gang violence in the United States was at an all-time high, according to the government’s own figures.The following report from Investor's Business Daily confirms and strengthens the argument I made in my February blog post:
When the NGIC got the ax, its latest annual gang threat assessment had revealed that gangs are responsible for nearly half of all violent crimes in most parts of the country and up to 90% in many jurisdictions.
A murdered Chicago teen's mother attends the president's speech on gun control, not knowing federal gun-crime prosecutions have in fact dropped on his watch — with the Windy City [Chicago] bringing up the rear...As I noted back in February:
Obama met with [Hadiya Pendleton's mother] and some of the others in a small group before his formal remarks [State of the Union propaganda speech] and told them "how serious this issue really is and something needs to be done about it," said Cleopatra Cowley-Pendleton, Hadiya's mother.
But President Obama did not tell this group that Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows that the Northern Illinois district ranked 90th out of 90 in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita...
Considering that there were 522 people murdered in Chicago in 2012, one would think that the documented lack of enforcement of existing gun laws by a president seeking more of them would be a national scandal...
The Syracuse study also showed that nationally federal gun crime prosecutions hit a decade low in 2011 under President Obama, down 40% from their peak under President George W. Bush in 2004.
The number of federal weapons prosecutions fell from about 11,000 in 2004 to about 6,000 under the Obama administration in 2011, before ticking up to 7,770 in 2012.
Prosecutions for making a false statement when buying a gun are down 29% from five years ago, while prosecutions for illegal possession fell 14%, according to federal data...
In 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2% — or 76,000 — were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally.
President Obama didn't explain to Hadiya Pendleton's mom — or to the other mothers assembled — that while he pushes for universal background checks, which career criminals will ignore, there is only a slightly higher chance that you will be prosecuted for an actual federal gun crime (1.7 in 10,000 according to the Syracuse study) than you will be struck by lightning (1 in 10,000 according to the National Weather Service).
In light of the administration's record on prosecuting gun crimes, its complaints about gun show loopholes, assault weapons bans, and universal background checks ring hollow.
Using Hadiya Pendleton's parents as a prop, during his State of the Union address, was a nice ploy by the President to promote himself and to try to fault Republican lawmakers for Hadiya's death, but a more appropriate propt would have been a huge banner proclaiming: "Democrats, stop being so soft on gun violence, and stop treating the criminals with kid gloves!"Related: In 1999, Obama wouldn’t support tougher prosecution for school shooters. 'A Chicago Tribune editorial even accused Obama of being a “gutless sheep” for missing a vote on crime legislation in late 1999.'
Of course, I would never expect the President to do that, not when his image is on the line, not when he has the opportunity to twist the facts and publicly shame the Republican Party. But the American people deserve the truth. And most of all, Hadiya Pendleton deserves the truth, Obama's carefully crafted and phony image notwithstanding.
The Jack Ryan Files: Obama ‘shamefully soft on crime and drugs’: Obama failed to 'support laws meant to protect battered women, ensure the privacy of rape victims and prevent the murder of witnesses....'
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Michelle Obama Q & A - Conservative tweeter confused?
From the USA Today:
Well, that's a disingenuous assertion.
From the U.S government's Let's Move.Gov website:
Incidentally, the bill was funded in part by siphoning off $2.2 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the federal food stamp program. Heh...
Moreover, many parents complain that their children are coming home from school hungry as a result of the new nutritional mandate initiated by Michelle Obama.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act? Heh.....
Conclusion: Matt Harrison is not confused at all; he's clearheaded and he's right!
P.S. Here's a few more tweets that were tweeted to Michelle Obama during here Q & A:
"Where in the constitution does its state "the FLOTUS shall tell kids what to eat"? Just wondering...."
"Why do you think the media has spent more time reporting on your bangs than they have on #Benghazi?"
"What's the best vacation destination to escape to when you really feel like spending my tax dollars in style?"......
First lady Michelle Obama knows how to use Twitter to promote her causes, but so do her husband's critics and opponents.The USA Today asserts that tweeters like Matt Harrison are "confused" because they assume Michelle Obama's Let's Move Campign is "mandatory," when it is really "voluntary."
Live by social media, slapped by social media. First lady Michelle Obama took to Twitter today for a Q&A on her anti-obesity campaign, but some critics couldn't resist the chance to try to hijack the forum to mock her...
Since 2009, Mrs. O has effectively used social media, especially Twitter, to promote her causes and reach people she might otherwise miss. But her husband's opponents know how to use social media, too, to promote their causes and to bash the president through the first lady.
"Would we save enough money to reopen WH tours if we shut down your Let's Move tour?," tweeted right-wing radio pundit Laura Ingraham, alluding to the sequester budget cuts the administration cited to shut down White House tours starting this week.
Some tweeters were confused about, or deliberately distorting, Mrs. Obama's Let's Move campaign, which seeks to encourage healthy eating and more exercise for everyone but especially kids. It's voluntary, not mandatory, as most first-lady projects are.
"What makes you think that you are qualified to dictate MY CHILDREN'S diet, or anything else concerning them, than I am?," scoffed Matt Harrison, self-described "Uncompromising Conservative."
Well, that's a disingenuous assertion.
From the U.S government's Let's Move.Gov website:
Since we launched Let’s Move! a year ago, we’ve been hard at work, talking to educators, parents, and kids... We’ve done it all to achieve one big goal – to end the epidemic of childhood obesity in a generation... And that’s why we made passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act a cornerstone of our work during the first year of Let’s MoveFrom Wikipedia:
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, [otherwise known as The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act]... sets new nutrition standards for schools, and allocates $4.5 billion dollars for their implementation. The new nutrition standards have been a point initiative of First Lady Michelle Obama in her fight against childhood obesity as part of her Let's Move! initiative.The $4.5 billion, tax payer-funded legislation was promoted by Michelle Obama as part of her Let's Move initiative. The bill is mandatory, not voluntary.
Incidentally, the bill was funded in part by siphoning off $2.2 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the federal food stamp program. Heh...
Moreover, many parents complain that their children are coming home from school hungry as a result of the new nutritional mandate initiated by Michelle Obama.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act? Heh.....
Conclusion: Matt Harrison is not confused at all; he's clearheaded and he's right!
P.S. Here's a few more tweets that were tweeted to Michelle Obama during here Q & A:
"Where in the constitution does its state "the FLOTUS shall tell kids what to eat"? Just wondering...."
"Why do you think the media has spent more time reporting on your bangs than they have on #Benghazi?"
"What's the best vacation destination to escape to when you really feel like spending my tax dollars in style?"......
Monday, March 11, 2013
Afghanistan: Two U.S. soldiers killed, at least ten wounded in insider attack; second insider attack in 4 days
Two American soldiers were killed, and at least ten wounded when an Afghan police officer opened fire on them with a truck-mounted machine gun after a training-related meeting between coalition and Afghan forces at a military base in the Jalrez district of Wardak province in Afghanistan.
The incident was the second insider attack in less than a week. On Friday a U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. soldiers were wounded when three men in Afghan uniforms rammed an Afghan military vehicle through a checkpoint, forced their way into a U.S. base and opened fire on their victims.
The latest incidents in a slew of Green on Blue attacks raises questions about the partnership between U.S. troops and the Afghan forces they are trying to train to take over responsibility for the country's security after Obama's dash to the exit is completed and U.S. forces have departed.
Related Posts: Afghanistan: Insider attack kills one American, wounds four; Suicide bombers kill Nineteen Afghans, including eight children
Taliban cancels Hagel, Karzai press conference
The incident was the second insider attack in less than a week. On Friday a U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. soldiers were wounded when three men in Afghan uniforms rammed an Afghan military vehicle through a checkpoint, forced their way into a U.S. base and opened fire on their victims.
The latest incidents in a slew of Green on Blue attacks raises questions about the partnership between U.S. troops and the Afghan forces they are trying to train to take over responsibility for the country's security after Obama's dash to the exit is completed and U.S. forces have departed.
Related Posts: Afghanistan: Insider attack kills one American, wounds four; Suicide bombers kill Nineteen Afghans, including eight children
Taliban cancels Hagel, Karzai press conference
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Taliban cancels Hagel, Karzai press conference
President Obama asserted in May of 2012 that the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan had been broken, contradicting an assessment made at the time by the heads of House and Senate Intelligence committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers, who, upon returning from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, stated that the Taliban were even stronger than they had been before the President announced his 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan in December of 2009 [while simultaneously announcing - and telegraphing - to the Taliban - his timetable for withdrawal]. The President's assertion about the Taliban's broken momentum also ran contrary to media reports which noted an increase in violence across the country.
U.S. officials said Sunday that a joint press conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, scheduled for Sunday afternoon at the presidential palace in Kabul, had been cancelled because of a security threat - although the two men still planned to meet later in the day.
The cancellation came a day after a suicide bomber killed nine people outside the Afghan Defense Ministry in central Kabul; the Taliban took credit for the bombing.
Hagel, who was reportedly in a safe location meeting with Afghan officials at the time of the explosion, later told reporters he heard the explosion from afar but wasn't sure what it was.
Nevertheless, U.S. officials refused to provide details on the security concerns that led to the cancellation of Sunday's joint press conference [and perhaps there might have been other reasons that led to the cancellation]. However, the attack on the Afghan Defense Ministry was likely the cause for those security concerns. Which leads me to believe that Obama's assertion about the Taliban is spot-on! For ultimately the Taliban's ability to bring about the cancellation of the Hagel/Karzai press conference at the presidential palace in Kabul can only mean one thing: "We broke the Taliban's momentum!"
U.S. officials said Sunday that a joint press conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, scheduled for Sunday afternoon at the presidential palace in Kabul, had been cancelled because of a security threat - although the two men still planned to meet later in the day.
The cancellation came a day after a suicide bomber killed nine people outside the Afghan Defense Ministry in central Kabul; the Taliban took credit for the bombing.
Hagel, who was reportedly in a safe location meeting with Afghan officials at the time of the explosion, later told reporters he heard the explosion from afar but wasn't sure what it was.
Nevertheless, U.S. officials refused to provide details on the security concerns that led to the cancellation of Sunday's joint press conference [and perhaps there might have been other reasons that led to the cancellation]. However, the attack on the Afghan Defense Ministry was likely the cause for those security concerns. Which leads me to believe that Obama's assertion about the Taliban is spot-on! For ultimately the Taliban's ability to bring about the cancellation of the Hagel/Karzai press conference at the presidential palace in Kabul can only mean one thing: "We broke the Taliban's momentum!"
Afghanistan: Insider attack kills one American, wounds four; Suicide bombers kill Nineteen Afghans, including eight children
A U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. soldiers were wounded in Afghanistan on Friday in an apparent insider attack, shortly before U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrived on his first visit to the country.
Three men in Afghan uniforms, driving an Afghan security force vehicle, forced their way into a U.S. base and opened fire on their victims.
Investigators said they were nearly certain it was an insider attack because the gunmen came from the Afghan side of the joint U.S.-Afghan base and rammed an Afghan military vehicle through a checkpoint dividing the base before they leaped out of the vehicle and gunned down their victims.
Additionally, on Saturday, two separate suicide attacks - one, on the Afghan Defense Ministry in Kabul, and one, near the city of Khost - left nineteen Afghans dead, including eight children.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on the Afghan Defense Ministry in Kabul, and said the attack was a message to Mr. Hagel that they have the capability to strike the capital city - even while he was there. However, the Taliban said it did not carry out the previous day's attack on the joint U.S.-Afghan base, which, as mentioned earlier, appears to have been an insider attack. Thus far, the Taliban have not claimed responsibility for the attack near Khost.
As the U.S. military continues to heed President Obama's directive to withdraw from Afghanistan and hand over security to the Afghan forces, the steady, ongoing stream of violence continues to raise the question as to whether the Afghan forces are capable of securing the country after Obama completes his bolting exit from Afghanistan.
Three men in Afghan uniforms, driving an Afghan security force vehicle, forced their way into a U.S. base and opened fire on their victims.
Investigators said they were nearly certain it was an insider attack because the gunmen came from the Afghan side of the joint U.S.-Afghan base and rammed an Afghan military vehicle through a checkpoint dividing the base before they leaped out of the vehicle and gunned down their victims.
Additionally, on Saturday, two separate suicide attacks - one, on the Afghan Defense Ministry in Kabul, and one, near the city of Khost - left nineteen Afghans dead, including eight children.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on the Afghan Defense Ministry in Kabul, and said the attack was a message to Mr. Hagel that they have the capability to strike the capital city - even while he was there. However, the Taliban said it did not carry out the previous day's attack on the joint U.S.-Afghan base, which, as mentioned earlier, appears to have been an insider attack. Thus far, the Taliban have not claimed responsibility for the attack near Khost.
As the U.S. military continues to heed President Obama's directive to withdraw from Afghanistan and hand over security to the Afghan forces, the steady, ongoing stream of violence continues to raise the question as to whether the Afghan forces are capable of securing the country after Obama completes his bolting exit from Afghanistan.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Graham criticizes Obama for "Sneaking" Abu Ghaith into the U.S., "under the nose of Congress"
Republican lawmakers sharply criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for "sneaking" Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a senior Al Qaeda leader, into the United States [New York] to stand trial in federal court instead of sending him to Guantanamo Bay.
Abu Ghaith was recently apprehended in Jordan and stealthily transported to the U.S. without the knowledge of congress. He served as a spokesman for Al-Qaida, and, prior to September 11, 2001, he was tasked with signing up new Al Qaeda members to train in Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan.
During a joint press conference with Sen. Kelly Ayotte on Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham asserted that, “We are setting a new precedent that will come back to bite us. It's clear to me they [Obama & Company] snuck him in... under the nose of Congress... We believe the administration's decision here to bring this person to New York City... without letting Congress know is a very bad precedent to set... The Congress has tried to tell the administration that when it comes to people like this we want them to go to Gitmo to be held for interrogation purposes. So we're putting the administration on notice... We think that sneaking this guy into the country, clearly going around the intent of Congress when it comes to enemy combatants, will be challenged."
Echoing Graham's sentiment, Sen. Ayotte argued that because the senior terrorist was transported to New York, he will now receive the same rights as a U.S. citizen, including Miranda rights, making it virtually impossible to properly interrogate him and glean the vital information that he possesses.
"When we find somebody like this, this close to bin Laden and the senior al-Qaida leadership," said Ayotte, "the last thing in the world we want to do, in my opinion, is put them in civilian court. This man should be in Guantanamo Bay... If you are that close to bin Laden, we want to develop all the information that person has."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers stated: “I am very concerned, just as I was in the past, about taking an al-Qaida member off the battlefield in foreign soil and Mirandizing them and bringing them back to the United States."
Sending Abu Ghaith to Guantanamo Bay “makes the most logical sense”, he said.
The U.S has gotten "that facility right and in the right positioning to handle that kind of high-risk, high-threat al-Qaida prisoner," he added.
But President Obama is seeking to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, hence, he was left with no other choice but to sneak the senior Al Qaeda leader into New York City and afford him all the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Liberal media pundits will undoubtedly hail Obama's decision [stealthy maneuver] to bypass congress and secretly slip Abu Ghaith into New York City as a bold act of "unilateralism"!
How right they are! Obama is the ultimate unilateralist!
Abu Ghaith was recently apprehended in Jordan and stealthily transported to the U.S. without the knowledge of congress. He served as a spokesman for Al-Qaida, and, prior to September 11, 2001, he was tasked with signing up new Al Qaeda members to train in Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan.
During a joint press conference with Sen. Kelly Ayotte on Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham asserted that, “We are setting a new precedent that will come back to bite us. It's clear to me they [Obama & Company] snuck him in... under the nose of Congress... We believe the administration's decision here to bring this person to New York City... without letting Congress know is a very bad precedent to set... The Congress has tried to tell the administration that when it comes to people like this we want them to go to Gitmo to be held for interrogation purposes. So we're putting the administration on notice... We think that sneaking this guy into the country, clearly going around the intent of Congress when it comes to enemy combatants, will be challenged."
Echoing Graham's sentiment, Sen. Ayotte argued that because the senior terrorist was transported to New York, he will now receive the same rights as a U.S. citizen, including Miranda rights, making it virtually impossible to properly interrogate him and glean the vital information that he possesses.
"When we find somebody like this, this close to bin Laden and the senior al-Qaida leadership," said Ayotte, "the last thing in the world we want to do, in my opinion, is put them in civilian court. This man should be in Guantanamo Bay... If you are that close to bin Laden, we want to develop all the information that person has."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers stated: “I am very concerned, just as I was in the past, about taking an al-Qaida member off the battlefield in foreign soil and Mirandizing them and bringing them back to the United States."
Sending Abu Ghaith to Guantanamo Bay “makes the most logical sense”, he said.
The U.S has gotten "that facility right and in the right positioning to handle that kind of high-risk, high-threat al-Qaida prisoner," he added.
But President Obama is seeking to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, hence, he was left with no other choice but to sneak the senior Al Qaeda leader into New York City and afford him all the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Liberal media pundits will undoubtedly hail Obama's decision [stealthy maneuver] to bypass congress and secretly slip Abu Ghaith into New York City as a bold act of "unilateralism"!
How right they are! Obama is the ultimate unilateralist!
Obama wines and dines Republicans; Will they veer off the right lane?
Sen. John McCain talks on his cell phone Wednesday evening after President Obama finished wining and dining a group of Republican Senators [that included Sen. McCain] at the Jefferson Hotel near the White House.
President Obama's aversion to reaching out to lawmakers and communicating with members of congress - Republicans and Democrats alike - is well-known. However, with the President's poll numbers sinking, as a result of his ridiculous brainchild, namely, his sequestration mandate - and his refusal to rescind the mandate - he apparently realizes he has little choice but to get off his high horse and meet with the common people and ordinary folk in congress.
Hence, Mr. Obama arranged a group dinner with Republican lawmakers on Wednesday at the Jefferson Hotel, a few blocks from the White House, where they discussed a number of subjects, including fiscal issues.
The dinner guests included Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Tom Coburn, among others.
"[The President's] never spent anytime reaching out." said Coburn about Obama's outreach in recent days. "The question is, is it starting to change because there is bad poll numbers or is it because he really decided he's going to lead and solve some of the problems of the country?"
Question number two: Will the food and drink from Wednesday's feast get the better of these Republicans and cause them to veer off the right lane?
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Benghazi Update: Obfuscations & Lies
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz says the State Department still refuses to provide the House Oversight Committee and the National Security Subcommittee with the names of the Americans who survived the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
Committee members would like to interview the survivors to find out exactly what happened on the night of the attacks, but the White House refuses to disclose the names of the survivors to the committee.
"The State Dept. will not provide us the information." Chaffetz said. "There were more than a dozen [survivors]. Some were interviewed in Libya, some were interviewed in Germany the night after the attack. We know that there have been people at the Bethesda Hospital; Secretary Kerry has visited those people. They won't even tell us their names!"
Chaffetz also said that the committee had sent a letter to the Accountability Review Board requesting them to testify before congress, but the Review Board - the investigative panel which Hillary Clinton appointed to do a whitewash job and absolve the administration of any blame - turned down the committee's request.
In a related development: The Obama administration, in recent days, handed over some documents pertaining to the Benghazi attacks after Congressional Republicans threatened to withhold confirmation of CIA director nominee John Brennan unless the White House agreed to disclose additional information about the attacks.
CBS' Sharyl Attkisson reported on Monday:
Committee members would like to interview the survivors to find out exactly what happened on the night of the attacks, but the White House refuses to disclose the names of the survivors to the committee.
"The State Dept. will not provide us the information." Chaffetz said. "There were more than a dozen [survivors]. Some were interviewed in Libya, some were interviewed in Germany the night after the attack. We know that there have been people at the Bethesda Hospital; Secretary Kerry has visited those people. They won't even tell us their names!"
Chaffetz also said that the committee had sent a letter to the Accountability Review Board requesting them to testify before congress, but the Review Board - the investigative panel which Hillary Clinton appointed to do a whitewash job and absolve the administration of any blame - turned down the committee's request.
In a related development: The Obama administration, in recent days, handed over some documents pertaining to the Benghazi attacks after Congressional Republicans threatened to withhold confirmation of CIA director nominee John Brennan unless the White House agreed to disclose additional information about the attacks.
CBS' Sharyl Attkisson reported on Monday:
Regarding the [Obama adminstration's] talking points [on Benghazi]: one source who reviewed the documents said removal of the word "al Qaeda" from the talking points was initiated, at least in part, by one of the "press shops." The source said press officers from the Defense Intelligence agency, the White House and the FBI were "looped in" from the start and that some of them expressed concerns in writing that the media would ask follow up questions if certain words or phrases were used...In other words, despite claims from the Obama administration - the President, Leon Panetta and the rest of the gang - that there were no signs of an imminent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi prior to actual attack, there were indeed specific warnings of an imminent attack on the consulate. Likewise, Attkisson noted via twitter that, "An official familiar with the docs says there were warnings from Libya sent to Washington in the days leading up to the attack that specifically warned of an imminent attack on the US compound in Benghazi."
The documents indicated numerous other changes were made to the talking points, including removal of certain references to an "attack."
The source who reviewed the documents also flagged several emails prior to the Benghazi attacks from officials in Libya to Washington, D.C., that supposedly specifically warned of an imminent attack within days of the Benghazi consulate.
Additionally, the source says "most if not all contact" between officials in Libya and Washington, D.C., once the attacks began reference al Qaeda, al Qaeda-affiliated cells or both as being the suspected instigator from the very start...
"It's amazing that anyone would question who was behind the attack and keep the idea of the demonstration going for weeks," said the source.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Obama Borrowed Nearly 6x as Much in February as Sequester Cuts All Year
The President's "Sequester" mandate, if left intact, will weaken the military and place an unnecessary strain on the U.S. economy. The automatic, arbitrary budget cuts - which Obama devised, and refused to rescind - are not helpful, to say the least.
Nevertheless, CNS News notes that, "During the month of February--as President Barack Obama was warning Americans they would see dramatic effects in their lives if “sequestration” of some planned federal spending kicked in--the federal government’s debt climbed by $253.5 billion."
Nevertheless, CNS News notes that, "During the month of February--as President Barack Obama was warning Americans they would see dramatic effects in their lives if “sequestration” of some planned federal spending kicked in--the federal government’s debt climbed by $253.5 billion."
That one-month increase in the debt was nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in spending cuts the Congressional Budget Office estimates will take place in all of fiscal 2013 as a result of sequestration...Just because the President engages in outrageous spending sprees, thereby causing the national debt to climb to unprecedented levels, it doesn't make the pain of sequestration, and arbitrary budget cuts, any easier to bear, in my opinion. I don't take sequestration lightly. Nevertheless, the fact that the national debt, in February, climbed nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in sequestration spending cuts that will take place in all of 2013, underscores just how much debt Obama is creating with his reckless and profligate spending sprees.
Bottom line: In February alone, the government borrowed nearly 6 times as much as it intends to save with the sequester over the rest of the fiscal year.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Bob Schieffer to McCain & Graham: Obama phoning Republicans is "news"; Chris Matthews disagrees
During an interview with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on Sunday, CBS News anchor, Bob Schieffer, asked the two ranking Republican congressmen if they have recently received any phone calls from President Obama.
"Have you all been called by the President? We hear from his people this morning that, yes, he is starting to call Republicans and I guess that's kind of the state of where we are when it's news that we hear the President has called members of the other party."
Schieffer is partially correct: The country is indeed in a sad, sad state when it elects a President who refuses to communicate with members of the 'other party'. However, as Chris Matthews once lamented, Obama refuses to call members of his OWN party too [see the video below]...... Hence, Schieffer is indeed correct, but only partially correct.........
"Have you all been called by the President? We hear from his people this morning that, yes, he is starting to call Republicans and I guess that's kind of the state of where we are when it's news that we hear the President has called members of the other party."
Schieffer is partially correct: The country is indeed in a sad, sad state when it elects a President who refuses to communicate with members of the 'other party'. However, as Chris Matthews once lamented, Obama refuses to call members of his OWN party too [see the video below]...... Hence, Schieffer is indeed correct, but only partially correct.........
Friday, March 1, 2013
Personal income plummeted, largest one-month drop in 20 years, Disposable income suffers largest one-month decline since 1959 when monthly records began
Personal income growth plummeted to 3.6% in January, the largest one-month drop in 20 years, the Commerce Department said Friday. Disposable income - the money left over after taxes - dropped 4% after adjusting for inflation, the biggest plunge since monthly records began in 1959, Bloomberg News reported. Consumer spending rose just a measly 0.2%, but analysts say that most of those expenditures went toward higher heating bills and filling up the gas tank.
There was a decline in spending, in the month of January, on big-ticket items and durable goods, like cars, appliances, furniture and electronics. Spending on clothing, food and various other non-durable goods, also fell in January.
There was a decline in spending, in the month of January, on big-ticket items and durable goods, like cars, appliances, furniture and electronics. Spending on clothing, food and various other non-durable goods, also fell in January.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Flashback - Obama: I will veto any effort to get rid of sequestration!
During a press briefing earlier this month, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney conceded what others have already confirmed, namely that the budget sequestration mechanism - an automatic trigger which facilitates a series of devastating cuts in domestic and military spending if the White House and congress fail to reach an agreement on a deficit reduction plan by [tomorrow] March 1 - was conceived and crafted by the White House.
What's more, President Obama consistently rebuffed the desperate pleas of Republicans lawmakers who repeatedly begged him to do away with his reckless sequestration scheme.
Moreover, during a press briefing in 2011, President Obama stated that he would veto any effort on the part of congressional lawmakers to rescind his sequestration mandate.
"Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts," the President said. "My message to them is simple: 'No! I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending! There will be no easy off ramps on this one! We need to keep the pressure up...' "
Sadly, in a mere few hours from now, the President's sequestration mandate will likely go into effect; sequestration is the President's creation, it's his baby - and this is one baby that he will not allow to be aborted.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the President on the birth of his new baby!
Congratulations, Mr. President!
Sequester is an incredibly adorable baby; the spitting image of his/her father!
What's more, President Obama consistently rebuffed the desperate pleas of Republicans lawmakers who repeatedly begged him to do away with his reckless sequestration scheme.
Moreover, during a press briefing in 2011, President Obama stated that he would veto any effort on the part of congressional lawmakers to rescind his sequestration mandate.
"Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts," the President said. "My message to them is simple: 'No! I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending! There will be no easy off ramps on this one! We need to keep the pressure up...' "
Sadly, in a mere few hours from now, the President's sequestration mandate will likely go into effect; sequestration is the President's creation, it's his baby - and this is one baby that he will not allow to be aborted.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the President on the birth of his new baby!
Congratulations, Mr. President!
Sequester is an incredibly adorable baby; the spitting image of his/her father!
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Hagel displayed Obama campaign yard signs on his lawn in 2012
During the 2012 Presidential campaign, two Obama yard signs were prominently displayed on the lawn of Chuck Hagel's Virginia home - [an Obama/Kaine sign and an Obama/Biden sign].
Mr. Hagel - a nominal Republican, but, in actuality, an extreme left-wing ideologue - later claimed that his wife was responsible for the signs.
Heh......
And I suppose Hagel's wife was also responsible for her husband's endorsement of Nebraska's 2012 Democratic Senatorial candidate Bob Kerrey over Republican candidiate Deb Fischer. Heh......
Nebraska Republican party chairman Mark Fahleson was quoted by the National Review Online [in December] as saying he considered Hagel’s endorsement of Kerrey “an attempt to curry favor with the Obama administration.”
Fahleson added that on the very same morning that Hagel had flown to Omaha, Nebraska to publicly endorse Kerrey, Hagel had a phone conversation with Vice President Joe Biden. “We have no idea what they talked about,” Fahleson said suggestively.
The National Review Online noted that Republican Nebraska senator Mike Johanns also described Hagel's endorsement of Bob Kerrey as an effort on the part of Hagel to snag a cabinet position in the Obama administration.
“[Hagel’s] been clear he’d love to be in the administration,” Johannes said in November, adding that the Kerrey endorsement is “a step in [Hagel’s] path to try to build those bona fides that he is truly an Obama person and deserves a place in his cabinet.”
Then again, Hagel might have been coerced by his wife to throw his weight behind Kerrey. Heh..... In fact, Hagel might actually be a genuine Republican, who simply has no choice but to obey his wife's every command..........
Mr. Hagel - a nominal Republican, but, in actuality, an extreme left-wing ideologue - later claimed that his wife was responsible for the signs.
Heh......
And I suppose Hagel's wife was also responsible for her husband's endorsement of Nebraska's 2012 Democratic Senatorial candidate Bob Kerrey over Republican candidiate Deb Fischer. Heh......
Nebraska Republican party chairman Mark Fahleson was quoted by the National Review Online [in December] as saying he considered Hagel’s endorsement of Kerrey “an attempt to curry favor with the Obama administration.”
Fahleson added that on the very same morning that Hagel had flown to Omaha, Nebraska to publicly endorse Kerrey, Hagel had a phone conversation with Vice President Joe Biden. “We have no idea what they talked about,” Fahleson said suggestively.
The National Review Online noted that Republican Nebraska senator Mike Johanns also described Hagel's endorsement of Bob Kerrey as an effort on the part of Hagel to snag a cabinet position in the Obama administration.
“[Hagel’s] been clear he’d love to be in the administration,” Johannes said in November, adding that the Kerrey endorsement is “a step in [Hagel’s] path to try to build those bona fides that he is truly an Obama person and deserves a place in his cabinet.”
Then again, Hagel might have been coerced by his wife to throw his weight behind Kerrey. Heh..... In fact, Hagel might actually be a genuine Republican, who simply has no choice but to obey his wife's every command..........
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Hadiya Pendleton - Liberals' "Go easy on crime & gun violence" policies responsible for teen's death
Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams were charged, earlier this month, in the murder of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, the Chicago teen who was shot and killed just one week after performing at President Obama’s inauguration.
President Obama invited Hadiya's parents to his State of the Union Address last week and used them as a prop to 1) promote his gun control initiatives; 2) portray himself and his Democratic colleagues as the protectors of today's youth; 3) to depict the Republicans as the source of all evil who are responsible for the huge number of murders perpetrated against America's youth.
"Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight," Obama proclaimed. "They deserve a vote."
But truth be told, a large number of today's teens have been killed as a result of gang violence, soft prison sentences and a left-wing policy that advocates a "go soft" approach toward the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. [I have already alluded to this "go soft" approach in my previous post entitled, "The result of Obama's illegal immigration policies? Gang violence and Gang-Run Prostitution"].
Would Hadiya Pendleton still be alive today if there were stricter gun control laws in place? Would tougher gun laws have prevented the gang members who murdered Pendleton from procuring the murder weapon? I highly doubt it. However, were it not for the "go soft" on crime and gun violence attitude that Liberals hold so dearly to their hearts, Hadiya Pendleton would likely still be alive today.
Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams, who were charged with the murder of Hadiya Pendleton, were members of the SUWU gang faction.
The chief of Chicago's adult probation department said that because all three of Ward’s probation violations were misdemeanors, there’s no guarantee he would have been held in jail for long even if the violations had been reported to the judge. Nevertheless, Ward was convicted of a weapons charge in 2012, and he pleaded guilty to Aggravated Unlawful Use Of A Weapon, a felony punishable by 1 to 3 years imprisonment in the state of Illinois. But Ward never went to prison for the aforementioned conviction because of a state law that mandates a "go soft attitude" towards offenders under the age of 18; Ward was 17-years old at the time of the offense.
Stricter gun control laws, in all likelihood, would not have prevented Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams - the aforementioned SUWU gang members - from procuring a gun because gang members will obtain their guns by hook or by crook. But Hadiya Pendleton would likely still be alive today were it not for this "go soft" attitude toward criminals and gun violence that Liberals so eagerly embrace. As noted earlier, Michael Ward, in 2012, pleaded guilty to Aggravated Unlawful Use Of A Weapon, a felony punishable by 1 to 3 years imprisonment in the state of Illinois. Had Ward received a 1 to 3 year prison sentence, he would have been unable to murder Hadiya Pendleton in January of 2013 because he would have been incarcerated at the time. But sadly, he never served time for his gun conviction, and, he remained a free man even after violating his probation three times.
I noted in my previous post, via Judicial Watch, as follows:
Of course, I would never expect the President to do that, not when his image is on the line, not when he has the opportunity to twist the facts and publicly shame the Republican Party. But the American people deserve the truth. And most of all, Hadiya Pendleton deserves the truth, Obama's carefully crafted and phony image notwithstanding.
President Obama invited Hadiya's parents to his State of the Union Address last week and used them as a prop to 1) promote his gun control initiatives; 2) portray himself and his Democratic colleagues as the protectors of today's youth; 3) to depict the Republicans as the source of all evil who are responsible for the huge number of murders perpetrated against America's youth.
"Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight," Obama proclaimed. "They deserve a vote."
But truth be told, a large number of today's teens have been killed as a result of gang violence, soft prison sentences and a left-wing policy that advocates a "go soft" approach toward the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. [I have already alluded to this "go soft" approach in my previous post entitled, "The result of Obama's illegal immigration policies? Gang violence and Gang-Run Prostitution"].
Would Hadiya Pendleton still be alive today if there were stricter gun control laws in place? Would tougher gun laws have prevented the gang members who murdered Pendleton from procuring the murder weapon? I highly doubt it. However, were it not for the "go soft" on crime and gun violence attitude that Liberals hold so dearly to their hearts, Hadiya Pendleton would likely still be alive today.
Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams, who were charged with the murder of Hadiya Pendleton, were members of the SUWU gang faction.
State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said prosecutors had sought prison time for Ward when he was convicted of a weapons charge in 2012, but he was given probation because he was only 17 at the time of the offense. A state law that went into effect that year requires a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison for unlawful use of a weapon but only for offenders 18 or older, she said.Michael Ward, the one who actually pulled the trigger and shot and killed Hadiya Pendleton, was arrested three times while on probation for a gun conviction but never went to prison. Moreover, he violated his probation three times before he gunned down Hadiya Pendleton, but only one violation was ever reported to the judge.
Responding to a Tribune report that Ward had been arrested three times while on probation for his gun conviction but still was on the street, Alvarez said the Cook County Adult Probation Department was responsible for notifying prosecutors of the new arrests and filing for a violation of probation. That can result in an arrestee being sent to prison.
"What I've been told (is) the probation department has admitted that they did not notify us, so obviously we didn't proceed on that violation of probation," Alvarez said.
The chief of Chicago's adult probation department said that because all three of Ward’s probation violations were misdemeanors, there’s no guarantee he would have been held in jail for long even if the violations had been reported to the judge. Nevertheless, Ward was convicted of a weapons charge in 2012, and he pleaded guilty to Aggravated Unlawful Use Of A Weapon, a felony punishable by 1 to 3 years imprisonment in the state of Illinois. But Ward never went to prison for the aforementioned conviction because of a state law that mandates a "go soft attitude" towards offenders under the age of 18; Ward was 17-years old at the time of the offense.
Stricter gun control laws, in all likelihood, would not have prevented Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams - the aforementioned SUWU gang members - from procuring a gun because gang members will obtain their guns by hook or by crook. But Hadiya Pendleton would likely still be alive today were it not for this "go soft" attitude toward criminals and gun violence that Liberals so eagerly embrace. As noted earlier, Michael Ward, in 2012, pleaded guilty to Aggravated Unlawful Use Of A Weapon, a felony punishable by 1 to 3 years imprisonment in the state of Illinois. Had Ward received a 1 to 3 year prison sentence, he would have been unable to murder Hadiya Pendleton in January of 2013 because he would have been incarcerated at the time. But sadly, he never served time for his gun conviction, and, he remained a free man even after violating his probation three times.
I noted in my previous post, via Judicial Watch, as follows:
Last fall the Obama administration quietly shut down a crucial FBI division—National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC)—dedicated to countering gang violence. The alarming move came at a time when gang violence in the United States was at an all-time high, according to the government’s own figures.Using Hadiya Pendleton's parents as a prop, during his State of the Union address, was a nice ploy by the President to promote himself and to try to fault Republican lawmakers for Hadiya's death, but a more appropriate propt would have been a huge banner proclaiming: "Democrats, stop being so soft on gun violence, and stop treating the criminals with kid gloves!"
When the NGIC got the ax, its latest annual gang threat assessment had revealed that gangs are responsible for nearly half of all violent crimes in most parts of the country and up to 90% in many jurisdictions.
Of course, I would never expect the President to do that, not when his image is on the line, not when he has the opportunity to twist the facts and publicly shame the Republican Party. But the American people deserve the truth. And most of all, Hadiya Pendleton deserves the truth, Obama's carefully crafted and phony image notwithstanding.
The result of Obama's illegal immigration policies? Gang violence and Gang-Run Prostitution
From Judicial Watch:
In yet another example of sanctuary policies enabling criminals, the area surrounding the nation’s capital is infested with juvenile sex-trafficking operations run by illegal alien gangs that benefit from don’t-ask-don’t tell immigration policies practiced by area police.
For years violent street gangs, especially the MS-13 or Mara Salvatrucha, have operated lucrative prostitution enterprises in the District of Columbia area. Federal authorities have confirmed in recent years that most members of the notoriously violent MS-13 are illegal immigrants with active criminal records, most of them Mexican nationals, followed by Salvadorans and Hondurans.
But local sanctuary policies—such as those in place in D.C. and the area surrounding it—present the biggest obstacle to combating gang violence and the illicit businesses they operate. In fact, a 2008 study sanctioned by the Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed this, explaining that don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policies in sanctuary cities shield deportable violent criminals, especially gangbangers, from federal authorities.
This appears to be fueling the underage sex-trafficking business in the metro D.C. area..., but there are countless others in a region where sanctuary policies force cops to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Just this week an illegal immigrant pleaded guilty in Alexandria, Virginia to recruiting a pregnant teenager to work for a prostitution ring operated by the MS-13 in various parts of the state...
Despite this epidemic of underage gang-operated prostitution rings near the nation’s capital, last fall the Obama administration quietly shut down a crucial FBI division—National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC)—dedicated to countering gang violence. The alarming move came at a time when gang violence in the United States was at an all-time high, according to the government’s own figures.
When the NGIC got the ax, its latest annual gang threat assessment had revealed that gangs are responsible for nearly half of all violent crimes in most parts of the country and up to 90% in many jurisdictions. That’s because there are over 33,000 active gangs in the U.S. with some 1.4 million members, according to the now-defunct NGIC, which was created by Congress in 2005 to help curb the growth of gangs and related criminal activity.
Iranian terror plot discovered in Bahrain
Bahrain's National Security Agency announced Saturday the discovery of an Iranian backed "terrorist cell" in Bahrain that was planning to attack highly-sensitive civil and military sites and to target public figures. Bahraini Security Chief, Tareq al-Hassan, said the terrorist cell "brought in arms and explosives" and was prepared "to launch operations at a moment decided by their command in Iran."
The detained terror cell members admitted that they were recruited by two Bahrainis based in Iran.
Bahraini officials also revealed that a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard codenamed "Abu Nasser" was the mastermind of the terror operation.
The Iranian-backed terrorists were trained in the use of firearms, explosives, collection of intelligence information and photographing sensitive sites.
The training took place in camps operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iran and training sites belonging to Hezbollah in Iraq.
Additionally, the terror cell received $80,000 from Abu Nasser, the aforementioned Iranian Revolutionary Guard member.
However, it is worthy to note that, with a few carrots and a small dose of appeasement from President Obama and his Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, Iran will most certainly agree to cease its terrorist activities in Bahrain, Yemen etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Just ask Obama and Hagel, they'll tell you........ Heh........
The truth of the matter is, Iran is conducting these terrorist operations for peaceful purposes only, just as they are developing their nuclear program solely, and exclusively, for peaceful purposes. Hence, it would behoove the President to continue to adhere to his policy of refraining from meddling in Iran's peaceful pursuits.
President Obama has continuously reassured the Iranian government that he is not seeking, and will not seek, regime change in Iran; Chuck Hagel strongly advocates the same policy. And this is indeed the correct path to take, for only a non-meddling policy on Obama's part, that ensures there will be no regime change in Iran, will afford the Iranian government the opportunity to further engage in their peaceful activities....... Ahem......
The detained terror cell members admitted that they were recruited by two Bahrainis based in Iran.
Bahraini officials also revealed that a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard codenamed "Abu Nasser" was the mastermind of the terror operation.
The Iranian-backed terrorists were trained in the use of firearms, explosives, collection of intelligence information and photographing sensitive sites.
The training took place in camps operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iran and training sites belonging to Hezbollah in Iraq.
Additionally, the terror cell received $80,000 from Abu Nasser, the aforementioned Iranian Revolutionary Guard member.
However, it is worthy to note that, with a few carrots and a small dose of appeasement from President Obama and his Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, Iran will most certainly agree to cease its terrorist activities in Bahrain, Yemen etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Just ask Obama and Hagel, they'll tell you........ Heh........
The truth of the matter is, Iran is conducting these terrorist operations for peaceful purposes only, just as they are developing their nuclear program solely, and exclusively, for peaceful purposes. Hence, it would behoove the President to continue to adhere to his policy of refraining from meddling in Iran's peaceful pursuits.
President Obama has continuously reassured the Iranian government that he is not seeking, and will not seek, regime change in Iran; Chuck Hagel strongly advocates the same policy. And this is indeed the correct path to take, for only a non-meddling policy on Obama's part, that ensures there will be no regime change in Iran, will afford the Iranian government the opportunity to further engage in their peaceful activities....... Ahem......
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Lavrov snubs Kerry
Secretary of State John Kerry placed a telephone call on Tuesday to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to discuss North Korea's recent nuclear test. But Kerry failed to make contact with the Russian foreign Minister. Lavrov, who is currently visiting Africa, has thus far, left the call unanswered.
However, this is not the first time that the Obama/Russia reset button has prompted such a congenial and warm snub from Mr. Lavrov.
In January of 2012, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to contact Mr. Lavrov - while he was on a visit Australia - to discuss a UN resolution on Syria. CNN reported at the time that Clinton had been trying for two days to reach her Russian counterpart. But Mr. Lavrov was apparently unavailable, and did not return the call. A Russian news media outlet explained at the time that Mr. Lavrov "was busy negotiating with his Australian partners." Heh.... Russia has, thus far, blocked three U.N. Security Council resolutions on Syria.
On Friday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that Lavrov still had not returned Mr. Kerry's telephone call. Nuland went on to say that if the Russians "are too busy or otherwise engaged, the offer stands, and we'll continue to do other diplomacy.” Heh....
However, this is not the first time that the Obama/Russia reset button has prompted such a congenial and warm snub from Mr. Lavrov.
In January of 2012, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to contact Mr. Lavrov - while he was on a visit Australia - to discuss a UN resolution on Syria. CNN reported at the time that Clinton had been trying for two days to reach her Russian counterpart. But Mr. Lavrov was apparently unavailable, and did not return the call. A Russian news media outlet explained at the time that Mr. Lavrov "was busy negotiating with his Australian partners." Heh.... Russia has, thus far, blocked three U.N. Security Council resolutions on Syria.
On Friday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that Lavrov still had not returned Mr. Kerry's telephone call. Nuland went on to say that if the Russians "are too busy or otherwise engaged, the offer stands, and we'll continue to do other diplomacy.” Heh....
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Obama: Health Care Overhaul is already keeping costs down - State of the Union Address
Speaking at his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama said that the Affordable Care Act - otherwise know as Obamacare - is already keeping health care costs down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)