The bombing suspects “intended to drive to New York and detonate additional explosives in Times Square,” [New York Mayor Michael] Bloomberg said. Bloomberg said city officials had been notified by the FBI Wednesday night about the statements by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is in the hospital.
New York Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Tsarnaev had initially told investigators that he and his brother had decided to go to New York to “party.” But that story changed, he said, in a subsequent interrogation.
Kelly said Tsarnaev told investigators that the the brothers had “decided spontaneously” on Times Square as a target, while they were driving around in a carjacked Mercedes last Thursday night...
Kelly said the brothers had six bombs in their possession: one pressure cooker bomb like those used to attack the Marathon and five pipe bombs. But Kelly said the plan “fell apart” when the brothers realized they were low on gas...
The brothers had six bombs in their possession and one pressure cooker, which would indicate that their decision to set off bombs was not spontaneous, and that they already had plans to set off the bombs before they hijacked the car. The question arises: Since they already had plans to detonate the bombs before they hijacked the car, is it sensible to believe they didn't have a specific target in mind before the hijacking, and that they only decided on a target while they were driving around in the car?!
Maybe..., maybe not......
Hmmm......
But, if Times Square wasn't a spontaneous target, but rather a premeditated target, why would Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lie and say it was spontaneous?
I could speculate, and offer up a theory - if the theory were sound - and I'm not sure it is, so I'll skip it.
[Hint: New York connections.....]
However, one way to dovetail Tsarnaev's 'spontaneous' claim with his premeditated bombing plot might be as follows: The brothers had plans to set off another round of explosions in Boston, but changed their minds and decided it would be easier to flee to New York and detonate the bombs there. But, I'm not sure I like that explanation....
U.S. officials told the AP that Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Set Off a ping in the TECS database, in 2012, when he returned to the U.S. from his overseas trip to the Russian provinces of Dagestan and Chechnya:
[Tamerlan] Tsarnaev's name was added to a Homeland Security Department database used by U.S. officials at the border to help screen people coming in and out of the U.S. That database is called the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or TECS.... Three days before he left for Russia, the TECS database generated an alert [a ping] on Tsarnaev. That alert was shared with a Customs and Border Protection officer who is a member of the FBI's Boston joint terrorism task force.
In July 2012, Tsarnaev returned to the U.S., and another alert [ping] was generated in TECS. This information was again shared with the Customs and Border Protection officer on the FBI's Boston joint terrorism task force. But because the FBI had closed its investigation into Tsarnaev a year earlier, there was no reason to be suspicious of his travels to Russia.
U.S. officials told ABC News that Mr. Tsarnaev, DID NOT Set Off a ping in the TECS database, upon his return to the U.S.:
The Head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Jan Kubis, told a NATO ministerial briefing in Brussels on Tuesday that civilian casualties in Afghanistan rose by about 30% in the first quarter of 2013.
Mr. Kubis said that 475 civilians were killed and 872 wounded between January 1 and March 31 of this year.
The UN envoy called on anti-government groups "to cease targeting civilians, using children in suicide operations and attacking public places including places of worship."
The sharp spike in casualties among Afghan civilians and Afghan security forces comes as U.S and coalition troops continue to hand over more and more security responsibilities to the Afghan troops - and it raises concerns as to whether the Afghan forces will be able to secure the country after President Obama's 2014 exit [capitulation] strategy is consummated.
The AP noted on Sunday:
[Taliban] insurgents killed six police officers at a checkpoint and a suicide bomber killed three civilians at a shopping bazaar in separate attacks Sunday in eastern Afghanistan, while an independent security group warned 2013 is on track to be one of the most violent years of the war.
April already has been the deadliest month this year for security forces and Afghan and foreign civilians as the U.S. and other countries prepare to end their combat mission by the end of next year.
According to an Associated Press tally, 222 people have been killed in violence around the nation this month, including Sunday's nine fatalities....
On Friday, Taliban insurgents attacked a local police checkpoint in Andar, a district of Ghazni province..., and killed 13 officers...
In other violence, the Taliban cut a hand and foot off each of two villagers they accused of helping escort coalition convoys...
Hostilities have surged in Afghanistan as the spring fighting season begins. This year is being closely watched because Afghan forces must operate with less support from the international military coalition. With foreign forces due to hand over combat responsibilities to the local forces next year, the current fighting is a test of their ability to take on the country's insurgency.
Reflecting the rise in bloodshed, the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office said Sunday there were 2,331 insurgent-initiated attacks in the first quarter of this year, a 47 percent increase over the same January-March period last year. "We assess that the current re-escalation trend will be preserved throughout the entire season and that 2013 is set to become the second most violent year after 2011," which suffered 2,755 such attacks in the first three months of the year, the report said.
The U.S.-led NATO coalition has stopped releasing statistics on insurgent attacks in Afghanistan...
The rise of violence that his organization reported in early 2013 should raise serious concern... about whether Afghan forces can fill the gap being left by the reduction in U.S.-led international forces, said Tomas Muzik, the director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office.
Russian authorities alerted the FBI not once but ``multiple’’ times over their concerns about Tamerlan Tsarnaev -- including a second time nearly a year after he was first interviewed by FBI agents in Boston -- raising new questions about whether the FBI should have focused more attention on the suspected Boston Marathon bomber, according to US senators briefed on the probe Tuesday.
The FBI has previously said it interviewed Tsarnaev in early 2011 after it was initially contacted by the Russians. After that review, the FBI has said, it determined he did not pose a threat.
In a closed briefing on Tuesday, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee learned that Russia alerted the United States about Tsarnaev in ``multiple contacts’’ -- including ``at least once since October 2011,’’ said Richard Burr, a Republican of North Carolina, speaking with reporters afterward
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., suggested today that Democratic lawmakers get preferential treatment over Republican colleagues when applying for stimulus grants that fund transportation projects, given that almost three-quarters of the grant money has been spent in Democratic districts.
President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill contained funding for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program grants. Democratic districts have received $356,109,553 from the program, compared to just $132,272,695 for Republican districts.
“There is a growing need for real improvement in our infrastructure in every corner of this country,” Vitter said in a statement Thursday. “It is essential that grant projects are selected on a transparent, merit-based set of criteria, not the voting trends of the region. I’m concerned that politics have entered into the process with the TIGER grants, which is why I’ll continue advocating for reforms.”
Earlier this month, the senator asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate how grants are awarded.
Vitter noted the following in a press release:
In 2011, GAO [the Government Accountability Office] reported transparency concerns with the program saying "DOT [the Department of Transportation] cannot definitively demonstrate the basis for its award selections, particularly the reasons why recommended projects were selected for half the awards over highly recommended ones."
Speaking in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday, shortly after the Senate voted down his proposed gun legislation, President Obama stated in a feigned display of righteous indignation: "I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. 'A prop,' somebody called them.... Are they serious?... Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate? So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington."
Obama is correct in one aspect: His phony display of righteous indignation made it "a pretty shameful day for Washington" on Wednesday. In fact, his perpetual displays of fake righteous indignation make a lot of days pretty shameful days for Washington.
A "prop"? I used that term on a couple ofoccasions to describe Obama's exploitation of the parents of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year old Chicago native who was shot and killed in January by two gang members.
"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."
The President [shamefully] used Hadiya Pendleton's parents as a poltical prop, while casually ignoring the facts, including his own abysmal record on gun violence and crime.
Here are the facts:
In 2012, Michael Ward, the Chicago gang member who shot and killed Hadiya Pendleton [the shooting occurred the following year, in January of 2013], 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 an Illinois 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.
Ward was also arrested three times while on probation for his gun conviction but only one violation was ever reported to the judge, and he managed to avoid prison once again.
As a member of the SUWU gang faction, Michael Ward, in all likelihood, would have obtained firearms regardless of any kind of gun legislation. However, It would have been impossible for him to gun down Hadiya Pendleton from a prison cell. But sadly, he never went to jail, because of a "go-soft" attitude towards criminals - an attitude typically embraced by the progressive community.
What's more, Judicial Watch noted that, "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."
Investor's Business Daily recently noted 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..., 6 million Americans... applied to buy a gun... 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."
"The prosecution rate [for gun violations] in Chicago" - Obama's hometown - "was the lowest in the country."
A Chicago Tribume editorial once accused Obama of being a "gutless sheep' for missing a vote on crime legislation in late 1999."
Considering the facts surrounding Hadiya Pendleton's death, and Obama's abysmal record on gun violence and crime, it is crystal clear that the President used Hadiya's parents as a political prop during his State of the Union address, while demonstrating a casual, and typical, disregard for the facts, and the truth.
Obama's State of Union deceit [prop and all], coupled with his egregious record on gun violence and crime, leaves us with no choice but to conclude the obvious: His display of righteous indignation is disingenuous, and phony, at best.
If the true motive behind his proposed gun legislation is crime prevention and protecting America's youth, how can he be soft on crime, gang violence and federal weapons prosecutions?
Here are a few previous posts detailing the facts surrounding Hadiya Pendleton's shooting and the Obama administration's egregious record on federal gun crime prosecutions and gang violence:
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...
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.
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:
"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......." Ahem......
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........ Just kidding.........
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.
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:
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...
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...
Take note of the second paragraph:
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............
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.
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 thisdistraction..."
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.........
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.
“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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
A local contractor working on a project in Afghanistan was been beaten and detained Wednesday in Kabul.
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...
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.
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.
The following report from Investor's Business Daily confirms and strengthens the argument I made in my February blog post:
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...
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!"
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.
First lady Michelle Obama knows how to use Twitter to promote her causes, but so do her husband's critics and opponents.
Live by social media, slapped by social media. First lady Michelle Obama took to Twitter today for a Q&A on her anti-obesity campaign, but some critics couldn't resist the chance to try to hijack the forum to mock her...
Since 2009, Mrs. O has effectively used social media, especially Twitter, to promote her causes and reach people she might otherwise miss. But her husband's opponents know how to use social media, too, to promote their causes and to bash the president through the first lady.
"Would we save enough money to reopen WH tours if we shut down your Let's Move tour?," tweeted right-wing radio pundit Laura Ingraham, alluding to the sequester budget cuts the administration cited to shut down White House tours starting this week.
Some tweeters were confused about, or deliberately distorting, Mrs. Obama's Let's Move campaign, which seeks to encourage healthy eating and more exercise for everyone but especially kids. It's voluntary, not mandatory, as most first-lady projects are.
"What makes you think that you are qualified to dictate MY CHILDREN'S diet, or anything else concerning them, than I am?," scoffed Matt Harrison, self-described "Uncompromising Conservative."
The USA Today asserts that tweeters like Matt Harrison are "confused" because they assume Michelle Obama's Let's Move Campign is "mandatory," when it is really "voluntary."
Well, that's a disingenuous assertion.
From the U.S government's Let's Move.Gov website:
Since we launched Let’s Move! a year ago, we’ve been hard at work, talking to educators, parents, and kids... We’ve done it all to achieve one big goal – to end the epidemic of childhood obesity in a generation... And that’s why we made passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act a cornerstone of our work during the first year of Let’s Move
From Wikipedia:
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, [otherwise known as The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act]... sets new nutrition standards for schools, and allocates $4.5 billion dollars for their implementation. The new nutrition standards have been a point initiative of First Lady Michelle Obama in her fight against childhood obesity as part of her Let's Move! initiative.
The $4.5 billion, tax payer-funded legislation was promoted by Michelle Obama as part of her Let's Move initiative. The bill is mandatory, not voluntary.
Incidentally, the bill was funded in part by siphoning off $2.2 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the federal food stamp program. Heh...
Moreover, many parents complain that their children are coming home from school hungry as a result of the new nutritional mandate initiated by Michelle Obama.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act? Heh.....
Conclusion: Matt Harrison is not confused at all; he's clearheaded and he's right!
P.S. Here's a few more tweets that were tweeted to Michelle Obama during here Q & A:
"Where in the constitution does its state "the FLOTUS shall tell kids what to eat"? Just wondering...."
"Why do you think the media has spent more time reporting on your bangs than they have on #Benghazi?"
"What's the best vacation destination to escape to when you really feel like spending my tax dollars in style?"......
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.
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!"
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.
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!
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?
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz says the State Department still refuses to provide the House Oversight Committee and the National Security Subcommittee with the names of the Americans who survived the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
Committee members would like to interview the survivors to find out exactly what happened on the night of the attacks, but the White House refuses to disclose the names of the survivors to the committee.
"The State Dept. will not provide us the information." Chaffetz said. "There were more than a dozen [survivors]. Some were interviewed in Libya, some were interviewed in Germany the night after the attack. We know that there have been people at the Bethesda Hospital; Secretary Kerry has visited those people. They won't even tell us their names!"
Chaffetz also said that the committee had sent a letter to the Accountability Review Board requesting them to testify before congress, but the Review Board - the investigative panel which Hillary Clinton appointed to do a whitewash job and absolve the administration of any blame - turned down the committee's request.
In a related development: The Obama administration, in recent days, handed over some documents pertaining to the Benghazi attacks after Congressional Republicans threatened to withhold confirmation of CIA director nominee John Brennan unless the White House agreed to disclose additional information about the attacks.
CBS' Sharyl Attkisson reported on Monday:
Regarding the [Obama adminstration's] talking points [on Benghazi]: one source who reviewed the documents said removal of the word "al Qaeda" from the talking points was initiated, at least in part, by one of the "press shops." The source said press officers from the Defense Intelligence agency, the White House and the FBI were "looped in" from the start and that some of them expressed concerns in writing that the media would ask follow up questions if certain words or phrases were used...
The documents indicated numerous other changes were made to the talking points, including removal of certain references to an "attack."
The source who reviewed the documents also flagged several emails prior to the Benghazi attacks from officials in Libya to Washington, D.C., that supposedly specifically warned of an imminent attack within days of the Benghazi consulate.
In other words, despite claims from the Obama administration - the President, Leon Panetta and the rest of the gang - that there were no signs of an imminent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi prior to actual attack, there were indeed specific warnings of an imminent attack on the consulate. Likewise, Attkisson noted via twitter that, "An official familiar with the docs says there were warnings from Libya sent to Washington in the days leading up to the attack that specifically warned of an imminent attack on the US compound in Benghazi."
Additionally, the source says "most if not all contact" between officials in Libya and Washington, D.C., once the attacks began reference al Qaeda, al Qaeda-affiliated cells or both as being the suspected instigator from the very start...
"It's amazing that anyone would question who was behind the attack and keep the idea of the demonstration going for weeks," said the source.
The President's "Sequester" mandate, if left intact, will weaken the military and place an unnecessary strain on the U.S. economy. The automatic, arbitrary budget cuts - which Obama devised, and refused to rescind - are not helpful, to say the least.
Nevertheless, CNS News notes that, "During the month of February--as President Barack Obama was warning Americans they would see dramatic effects in their lives if “sequestration” of some planned federal spending kicked in--the federal government’s debt climbed by $253.5 billion."
That one-month increase in the debt was nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in spending cuts the Congressional Budget Office estimates will take place in all of fiscal 2013 as a result of sequestration...
Bottom line: In February alone, the government borrowed nearly 6 times as much as it intends to save with the sequester over the rest of the fiscal year.
Just because the President engages in outrageous spending sprees, thereby causing the national debt to climb to unprecedented levels, it doesn't make the pain of sequestration, and arbitrary budget cuts, any easier to bear, in my opinion. I don't take sequestration lightly. Nevertheless, the fact that the national debt, in February, climbed nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in sequestration spending cuts that will take place in all of 2013, underscores just how much debt Obama is creating with his reckless and profligate spending sprees.
During an interview with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on Sunday, CBS News anchor, Bob Schieffer, asked the two ranking Republican congressmen if they have recently received any phone calls from President Obama.
"Have you all been called by the President? We hear from his people this morning that, yes, he is starting to call Republicans and I guess that's kind of the state of where we are when it's news that we hear the President has called members of the other party."
Schieffer is partially correct: The country is indeed in a sad, sad state when it elects a President who refuses to communicate with members of the 'other party'. However, as Chris Matthews once lamented, Obama refuses to call members of his OWN party too [see the video below]...... Hence, Schieffer is indeed correct, but only partially correct.........
Personal income 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.
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!
"I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care... is what you do around things like end-of-life care.... I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here!" Barack Obama in an interivew with the New York Times - April 2009
