Sen. Hagan distances herself from Obama, hides out in DC, while Obama visits North Carolina

Democratic Senator Kay Hagan is a facing a tough re-election campaign in North Carolina, which apparently has compelled her to remain in Washington DC on Wednesday and to distance herself from President Obama when he arrives in her home state.

The LA Times notes that, "the notable absence at Obama's first trip outside the Beltway in this election year highlights a perennial quandary for embattled candidates and less-than-popular presidents. With a battle for control of the Senate looming and the president's approval rating deflated, Democrats and the White House will spend much of this year grappling with whether their most vulnerable candidates will be helped or harmed by a visit from Obama and how to keep those candidates some distance — but not too far — from the president."

Apparently, Sen. Hagan is of the opinion that standing beside Obama when he addresses North Carolina audiences is not in her best interest - not during a re-election campaign.

The Cataret County News Times reports:

She’s remaining in Washington, D.C., where her spokesman said she had to because the Senate was in session.

But on Oct. 17, 2011, even though the Senate was in session, Sen. Hagan was in Asheville with Mr. Obama as part of his bus tour to push his jobs plan... Senate records, said Andrew Johnson yesterday on National Review’s “The Corner,” show Sen. Hagan was still able to make it back to Washington in time to cast votes on Oct. 17, 2011, at 5:31 p.m., after which she was interviewed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.

But that was then.

This is now!

Obviously Sen. Hagan doesn’t want to appear with Mr. Obama because … well … she obviously believes he would be a drag on her re-election chances.’

The White House Dossier blog notes

Sen. Kay Hagan will remain in Washington, where she supposedly needs to work on her important Senate stuff.

But the Senate isn’t expected to take up any serious legislation until “late in the day,” according to The Hill’s Floor Action blog, when it “may” begin work on a wide ranging spending bill. Obama will be back from North Carolina by 3:15 pm ET.

Hagan has been roundly criticized for parroting President Obama's infamous lie that people who like their health insurance plans and their doctors will be able to keep them after the passage of Obamacare.

However, the Senator, in recent months, has distanced herself from the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, and, it seems, she is now distancing herself from Obama whose poll numbers, in recent months, weeks and days have plummeted to new lows.

Hagan's decision to distance herself from the President prompted Americans for Prosperity to release a video on Thursday criticizing the Senator for "hiding out" in Washington, "while her buddy Barack is in North Carolina." Heh.

Rouhani: Obama "SURRENDERED" to Iran in nuclear deal!

"Our relationship with the world is based on Iranian nation's interests. In Geneva agreement world powers SURRENDERED to Iranian nation's will."
"The Geneva deal means the SURRENDER of big powers before the great nation of Iran!"
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on January 14 [in a speech and in a tweet] commenting on the nuclear agreement in Geneva which began with 5 secret meetings between Iranian officials and members of the Obama administration. The capitulation process advanced further several months ago when President Obama placed a telephone call to Rouhani. The official surrender culminated on November 24, 2013 when Obama eagerly authorized Rouhani to continue his nuclear enrichment program while agreeing to significantly soften the international sanctions on Iran

Update: January 15 - Rouhani deletes "Surrender" tweet in an effort to perpetuate his deceptive ruse

Dianne Feinstein Reaffirms: Benghazi Lie "Doesn’t Jibe With Me!"

The White House's politically calculated lie - in the weeks after the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks and several weeks prior to the 2012 Presidential election - that the attacks in Benghazi, which left four Americans dead, resulted from a spontaneous demonstration against a video “doesn’t jibe with me,” said Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a recent interview with The Hill.

Sen. Feinstein wasn't actually addressing the White House's statements on the matter, but rather she was responding to various disingenuous individuals who are still trying to perpetuate the lie.

White House officials were later forced to admit that their previous statements on the matter were incorrect, but they refused to admit that the statements were deliberate and politically calculated lies.

Yesterday, Fox News added Former U.S. AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham to the long list of US officials and Benghazi survivors who say the fatal attacks were clearly premeditated acts of terror.

According to newly disclosed and partially declassified transcripts of Gen Ham's testimony during a congressional hearing last year, Gen. Ham said that:

"I am not aware of one [that there was any kind of demonstration at the US consulate when the attacks occurred], sir. It became pretty apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly after this attack began, that this was an attack... I personally, and I think the command, very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."

This is not the first time, however, that Sen. Feinstein has rejected the Benghazi lie.

Sen. Feinstein made a similar assessment in November of 2012, and wondered how it was even possible to make the claim that the attacks in Benghazi were the result of a spontaneous demonstration. But of course, with Obama, the possibilities are endless; But surely Sen. Feinstein must be acutely aware of this phenomenon!

Here's a video of Sen. feinstein, in November of 2012, discussing the Obama/Benghazi lie. The senator appears about 2 minutes and 4 seconds into the video:



Incidentally, in the Spring of 2012, when President Obama issued a proclamation asserting that the Taliban's momentum had been broken, Sen. Feinstein, who, at the time, had just returned from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, said just the opposite.  "What we've found is that the Taliban is stronger" than it was prior to the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan, the Senator said.  But of course, as I noted earlier, with Obama, the possibilities, and the the lies, are endless. Heh......

Here's some recent statements on the Benghazi attacks from various officials and individuals, including some recent statements pertaining to previous security requests for Benghazi and the lease on the US compound in Benghazi - compliments of Fox News and CBS News:

"The FBI confirmed to me that when they interviewed the survivors on the 15th the 16th and the 17th [of September], not one person ever mentioned anything other than a terrorist attack. No one mentioned a protest outside the consulate. So, how could the Obama administration come up with a protest story if everybody on the ground during the attack said it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest?"
Sen. Lindsey Graham, in an interview with Fox News

"We found no evidence in our thorough review of all of those classified documents again, some 4,000 of them. We found no evidence that there was any involvement in the video leading up or during the day of the attack. The only discussion of the video came [from the President and his White House cronies] subsequent to the attack. That's at least in the realm of my investigation through the intelligence committee. We again, found no evidence that that video had anything to do with the attack."
The head of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, in an interview with Fox News

"Individuals on the ground said, 'Hey, this is a terrorist led event' in our interviews. Leading up to the event it was very clear by the classified information that was being provided that the intelligence gathered said that there was a terrorist activity event likely to happen and it was getting worse or more probable as it got close to the 9/11 date."
Rep. Mike Rogers

“It doesn’t jibe with me.”
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in an interview with The Hill disputing the White House's politically calculated lie that the Benghazi attacks resulted from a spontaneous demonstration against a video

"It was a coordinated military style attack, heavily armed insurgents coming through the gate [according to a survivor of the Benghazi attack who spoke with several US Senators]... So how could the Obama administration come up with a protest story if everybody on the ground during the attack said it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest?"
Sen. Lindsey Graham

"I am not aware of one [that there was any kind of demonstration at the US consulate when the attacks occurred], sir. It became pretty apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly after this attack began, that this was an attack... I personally, and I think the command, very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack"
Former U.S. AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham testifying at a congressional hearing last year

"I have been briefed about the document [in which a request was made for additional security in Benghazi prior to the fatal terrorist attacks]. I will only say this [because the document still remains classified], there's an additional security request to upgrade security at the compound based on increased threats from Al Qaeda groups in Benghazi. That request was denied, this security request was submitted about a month, or six weeks after the lease [on the U.S. compound] was renewed. How could they miss all of this?"
Sen. Lindsey Graham

"The State Department renewed the lease for the U.S. compound in Benghazi two months before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks without requiring the facility to meet normal security standards. That news comes from an interview Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., conducted with a survivor of the attacks. The survivor, a State Department diplomatic security agent whose name isn't being disclosed, spoke behind closed doors in late November to Senators Graham, Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J. The previously-undisclosed existence of the year-long lease calls into question the State Department's designation of the compound as "temporary" and therefore exempt from normal security requirements."
CBS News

Benghazi - Declassified Transcript reconfirms: White House knew immediately attacks were premeditated acts of terrorism

On the night of September 11, 2012, shortly after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi commenced, U.S. AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham met with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey to inform them of what he had learned about the attack, Fox News reported on Monday, citing newly disclosed and partially declassified transcripts of testimony given by Gen. Ham, last year, before a House Armed Services Subcommitte. The aforementioned meeting occurred immediately before Mr. Panetta and Mr. Dempsey had met with President Obama.

In the weeks after the attacks that left four Americans dead - as the 2012 Presidential election was approaching - President Obama and his White House minions claimed that the Benghazi murders were not the result of a premeditated and coordinated terrorist attack but rather were part of a spontaneous protest that turned violent.

However, Gen. Ham, in his testimony last year, said that he knew immediately after the attack on the US consulate began that it was a premeditated and coordinated terrorist attack.

Gen. Ham discussed this matter with Sec. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey before the two met with President Obama. It goes without saying that President Obama was made fully aware, immediately, that night, that the attacks were premeditated, coordinated acts of terrorism, and not spontaneous. But of course, with the 2012 Presidential election looming, the White House clearly believed that crafting phony talking points about the Benghazi attacks was absolutely critical to the President's reelection bid

During the hearing last year, Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon asked Gen. Ham as follows:

"I have a copy of the time line that you have now... The attack started at 9:42. I don't see any mention here about a demonstration, just simply an attack. Do you know if there was some kind of demonstration before this attack?"

Gen. Ham replied:

"I am not aware of one, sir. It became pretty apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly after this attack began, that this was an attack."

Ham reiterated this assertion later in the hearing:

"I personally, and I think the command, very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack," Ham said.

When questioned whether he "would have advised as such" if he had been asked whether the attack was a premeditated and coordinated act of terror, Ham replied: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."

And, no doubt, the premeditated, coordinated and terrorist element of the attack was also the nature of the subsequent conversation between President Obama, Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey - although this was not the nature of the phony talking points that President Obama cunningly, and artfully, crafted for the US electorate.

Change you can believe in, I suppose......

Al Qaeda linked terrorist chief, Abu Sufian bin Qumu, played a role in Benghazi attacks, and helped train Libyan rebels

US officials believe that Abu Sufian bin Qumu - the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah, Libya, who previously trained in an Al Qaeda terrorist camp and fought in Afghanistan in 2001 - played a role in the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, news media outlets reported on Wednesday. Bin Qumu also helped train the Libyan rebels during the Libyan uprising.

According to US officials, members of Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah participated in the attacks. The State Department also confirmed on Wednesday that Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah participated in the attacks.

Abu Sufian bin Qumu previously "trained at Usama Bin Laden's (UBL) Torkham camp", according to a Department of Defense document that was released by Wikileaks in April of 2011.

Bin Qumu also fought in Afghanistan in 2001, the document says.

The DOD document also notes that bin Qumu's name was "found on Al-Qaida's 11 September [2001] attacks financier Mustafa Al Hawsawi's laptop as an Al-Qaida member receiving family support."

In April of 2011, while the Obama administration was assisting the Libyan rebels, and after Wikileaks released the DOD document that detailed Mr. bin Qumu's ties to Al Qaeda, US intelligence officials conceded, according to news meadia reports at the time, that they believed bin Qumu was helping train the Libyan rebels in Benghazi, Libya. But, of course, this did not deter President Obama from further assisting the rebels. Moreover, other reports at the time indicated that among the Libyan rebel ranks were militants who fought against allied troops in Iraq. But this too, did not deter President Obama from helping the rebels.

As it turns out, President Obama and Mr. bin Qumu were both helping the Libyan rebels. However, while Obama did lend a helping hand to the Libyan rebels, who were being trained, at least partially, by Mr. bin Qumu - he did not lend a helping hand to the four Americans who were being killed by bin Qumu's men. Nor did he provide the Americans with adequate security in the months prior to the Benghazi attacks.

Nevertheless, as the old adage goes: "All's well that ends well", and, much to Obama's credit, Ansar al-Sharia and the Libyan rebels are now living in freedom; they are now free to roam about the country!

All's well that ends well, indeed!

Robert Gates' surprised reaction to Obama is surprising, questionable and hard to swallow

I was surprised to read that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was actually surprised when he heard President Obama and Hillary Clinton say to one another, several years ago - in Mr. Gates' presence - that their opposition to the 2007 surge in Iraq was political.

Mr. Gates spent considerable time working in the Obama administration. How is it possible that a shrewd and cunning individual like Mr. Gates was unaware of the true nature of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

According to journalist Bob Woodward, Robert Gates writes in his upcoming memoir as follows:

"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

Mr. Gates also called the aforementioned exchange between Obama and Hillary "remarkable".

Really, Mr. Gates? Was it really "surprising, dismaying and remarkable" to hear that exchange?

Difficult to believe, and hard to swallow; Mr. Gates, is a lot smarter than that.

Robert Gates must surely realize by now that President Obama [and Hillary Clinton, for that matter] has no principled ideological views. Aside from the President's policy of appeasing the most despicable and rogue elements around the globe, Mr. Obama stands for nothing; he has no real principles; everything he does, or says, is political and calculated, including the admission he made in the presence of Mr. Gates.

Why would Obama admit, in the presence of Mr. Gates, that his opposition to the Iraq surge was political, when saying such a thing sounds so awful,and callous?

The answer is simple to anyone who has the slightest understanding of Obama, and Hillary for that matter.

The President felt compelled to admit to Hillary, and to Mr. Gates, that his opposition to the surge was political, because, despite Obama's vociferous opposition to the surge and the huge stumbling blocks he placed in front of the then-Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush, the surge succeeded. And that raises questions about Obama's leadership qualities, his intellect and his ability to make both military and foreign policy decisions. Hence, Obama's admission to both Hillary and Mr. Gates that his opposition to the surge was political - as callous and ridiculous as it sounds - was more appealing to Obama than to simply say he made a bad call and that he had exercised bad judgement and exhibited complete incompetence when he opposed the much needed surge.

Surely Mr. Gates must have understood the motive behind Obama's admission.

Moreover, Mr. Gates - like his former boss - seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth and engaging in a bit of political maneuvering when he writes in his memoir that the President made the right decisions in Afghanistan, and yet he criticizes Obama and writes that, in early 2010, he reached the conclusion that Obama "doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his." adding that "for [Obama], it's all about getting out."

My head is spinning.

Bob Woodward, in his 2010 book, Obama's Wars, quoted President Obama, the Politician-in-Chief, as saying at various White House meetings: "I have two years with the public on this [the war in Afghanistan]... I want an exit strategy. I can't let this be a war without end. I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

Politics as usual.

In December of 2009, President Obama ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan. But while announcing his plans to send 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, the Politician-in-Chief also announced that the troops would begin to withdraw from the country in 18 months. Shortly thereafter, Zalmay Khalilzad, the former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, criticized Obama's strategy in an interview with CNN:

"Today, the president of the United States... announced an escalation of the war", Khalilzad said... "But he also coupled that with an exit strategy, including a goal of when the troops can start coming home..."

"If you [establish] a time line," Khalilzad said, "you encourage the enemy to out-wait you, to regard the strategy as not enduring."

"When I was the ambassador in Afghanistan," Khalizad added, "the Taliban sent me a message saying: 'You have all the watches, but we have all the time!' I think the emphasis on an artificial time line may encourage the Taliban to persist, to endure and for the region to assume that we do not have the staying power and, therefore, make the job of succeeding harder."

How right he was! Obama, when announcing his timeline for withdrawal. essentially telegraphed to the Taliban that he was seeking an exit strategy and that he did not take the troop surge seriously. Obama also reached out to the Taliban during that period of time and tried to commence talks with the Taliban, which made many people wonder whether Obama was actually boosting the Taliban's morale and sending the troops in harm's way for naught.

According to Mr. Gates, it wasn't until early 2010 that he reached the conclusion that Obama didn't "believe in his own strategy," and that "for [Obama]," it was "all about getting out." However, that conclusion should have been reached in December of 2009, the day Obama announced the troop surge while simultaneously announcing, and telegraphing to the Taliban, his 18 month timeline for withdrawing the troops. The surge was clearly a joke; a dangerous and phony gesture.

Mr. Gates also writes: "I never doubted Obama's support for the troops, only his support for their mission."

Suffice it to say that Obama's decision to announce a troop surge while simultaneously announcing a timetable for withdrawal, prompted a panel discussion on the Liberal CNN news channel as to whether the President's decision to send troops in harm's way with the aforementioned stipulations, and with a win-or-lose timetable for withdrawal, was "conscionable" or not.

Mr. Gates, however, "never doubted Obama's support for the troops."

Hmmm, but what about Obama's 2007 vote in the senate to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq? Obama, at the time, was harshly criticized by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who said the funds were needed to procure the necessary supplies to protect the troops. Mr. Biden said that the vote to cut off funds for the troops in Iraq was a political maneuver that jeopardized the lives of the troops. Of course, at the time, Mr. Biden's son was about to be deployed to Iraq, otherwise the veteran pol would have likely voted the same way. Nevertheless, Biden was right on the mark with his critique, and yet, for some strange reason, Mr. Gates has "never doubted Obama's support for the troops." Hmmm, I can't help but doubt Mr. Gates' sincerity on the matter.

It goes without saying that President Obama is the ultimate appeaser, who has a twisted view of the enemy. The only question is whether Robert Gates has a twisted view, and a twisted understanding of Obama?

The answer is most likely, 'No'. I think Robert Gates has a much clearer understanding of Obama than he is willing to admit. And yet, he is supportive of Obama.

Hmmm, kind of makes you wonder whether..........

Afghanistan: Release of 88 prisoners vindicates Obama's policy of detainee transfer, HEH....

US officials are reportedly unhappy with the Afghan government's recent announcement that it will soon release 88 prisoners from a jail that was recently transferred to Afghan control. However, I would assume that these US officials do not include members of the Obama administration because President Obama is a big fan of closing down US detention facilities and handing over the prisoners to foreign governments.

As the President recently explained in a statement issued upon signing a recent bill: "Since taking office, I have repeatedly called upon the Congress to work with my Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners... Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees... The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers."

President Obama is clearly a staunch advocate of handing over prisoners to foreign governments - despite the fact that these governments, at a later date, often free the prisoners. Hence, Mr. Obama can't possibly object to the Afghan government's latest plans. After all, it was Obama who steadfastly adhered to his own stated policies when he transferred over the aforementioned jail filled with prisoners to Afghan control - and now the Afghan government has simply decided to release these prisoners!

Hence, I must assume that members of the Obama administration are not among the US officials who are unhappy with the Afghan government's recent decision, but rather it is members of congress and the US military who have voiced their displeasure with the decision.

Reuters reported on Monday:

Afghanistan will release 88 prisoners as planned even though the United States considers them dangerous and wants them to remain in detention, the board reviewing their cases told Reuters.

The prisoners are being held at a jail at the Bagram air base north of Kabul. The United States only recently transferred the prison to Afghan control after it had become a serious source of tension with the Afghan government.

President Hamid Karzai instructed Afghan intelligence officials to provide the review board with more evidence against the prisoners, after the United States said there was proof of their involvement in the killing of foreign troops and they posed a serious threat to security.

But the head of the review board, Abdul Shakor Dadras, said the evidence did not warrant keeping the prisoners any longer.

"The documents we have seen so far provide no reason to convict them," Dadras told Reuters by telephone late on Sunday.

"Our decision is to release them as soon as possible if there is no incriminating evidence against them."

Sounds like the same kind of arguments the Obama administration has made about Gitmo detainees, who were detained because of their terrorist activities.

The disagreement over the prisoners is a further strain on Afghan-U.S. relations already seriously soured by Karzai's refusal to sign a bilateral security deal to shape the U.S. military presence after most foreign troops leave this year.

U.S. senators in Afghanistan last week pressed the president to stop the release, warning it would irreparably damage relations with the United States.

The planned release has also alarmed many senior Afghan security officials, who often see released prisoners return to the battlefield.

Colonel Dave Lapan, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, also voiced his displeasure with the planned detainee release, NBC News reported:

"The Afghan Review Board has exceeded its mandate and ordered the release of a number of dangerous individuals who are legitimate threats and for whom there is strong evidence supporting prosecution or further investigation," said Lapan.

The United States long resisted handing over the facility - because it feared individuals it considered dangerous would be released - but ultimately reached a deal with the Afghan government in early 2013.

Obama's chickens are coming home to roost; he must be smiling right now.....

Violence against Afghan women hit record levels in 2013 as Obama proceeded with his 'exit strategy'

Although Afghan women witnessed a huge improvement in their every day lives after US forces brought an end to the Taliban reign in 2001, the basic rights they had won back, and the security they had regained, has deteriorated rapidly during President Obama's tenure in office, and even more rapidly in 2013, as more and more coalition troops have departed the country as part of Mr. Obama's so-called "exit strategy":

Violent crime against women in Afghanistan hit record levels and became increasingly brutal in 2013, the head of the country's human rights commission said on Saturday, a sign that hard won rights are being rolled back as foreign troops prepare to withdraw...

Sima Samar, chair of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), told Reuters in a telephone interview that the brutality of attacks on women had greatly intensified last year.

"The brutality of the cases is really bad. Cutting the nose, lips and ears. Committing public rape," she said. "Mass rape... It's against dignity, against humanity."

She attributed the increase in crime to a culture of impunity and the imminent departure of international troops and aid workers, leaving women more exposed to attack...

"The presence of the international community and provincial reconstruction teams in most of the provinces was giving people confidence," Samar said.

"There were people there trying to protect women. And that is not there anymore, unfortunately."

Most foreign forces are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year and it is unclear whether any will remain beyond 2014 as relations deteriorate between Afghan authorities and their U.S. backers.

An AIHRC spokesman said the latest figures for 2013 showed a 25 percent increase in cases of violence against women for March through September... [According to UN report published in December, violence against women increased 28% in the past year.]

Another sign that rights for women have been rolled back in recent years is a rise in cases of self-immolation, a desperate last resort for women in abusive situations.

The burn unit of Herat hospital, one of two in Afghanistan, admitted a record number of women who had attempted to set themselves on fire in 2012.

Apparently, women's rights, and the protection of women, is just not Obama's cup of tea......

10-year old sister of Taliban commander nearly carries out suicide attack in Taliban-infested Helmand province

From Yahoo News:

Police [on Sunday] captured a would-be suicide bomber child and foiled Taliban's attempt to conduct a suicide attack, said Hamidullah Sediqi, a police officer.

"The 10-years old Spoghmai who was attempting to carry out suicide attack against police disguising herself to fetch up water from a stream at nearby police checkpoint Sunday evening was fortunately identified and captured," Sediqi said.

He also confirmed that Spoghmai's brother Zahir is Taliban local commander and has been fighting against government in the province.

The interior minister has also confirmed the arrest of the suicide bomber in the southern Helmand province.

"A 10-year child named Spoghmai, who was attempting to carry out suicide attack against police force in Khanshin district of Helmand province Sunday evening, was identified and arrested," a statement of interior ministry said Monday.

During investigation, the girl revealed that her brother named Zahir who is a Taliban fighter had encouraged her to conduct suicide attack, the statement said.

The child, according to various news media outlets, was wearing a suicide vest.

Notorious for growing poppy and militancy, Helmand has been regarded as Taliban hotbed in the conflict-hit Afghanistan.

Some experts are predicting that, by year's end, Helmand province will be governed by the Taliban, or people closely connected to the Taliban, as more and more coalition troops withdraw from the region as part of President Obama's exit strategy.

Elsewhere in Afghanistan, Yahoo News reported that a rocket fired by Taliban militants struck a civilian car in the Gereshk district on Saturday claiming the lives of four civilians.

In the Nangarhar Province of Afghanistan, an American soldier was killed on Saturday when his unit was attacked by rocket propelled grenades, the AP reported.

Also, on Saturday, an explosion hit one of the entrances of Camp Eggers, a predominantly American military base in the heart of the Afghan capital, Kabul, but no casualties were reported.

According to Reuters, "the bomb had targeted a military convoy near Camp Eggers, an ISAF base in the diplomatic quarter of the capital close to both the German and Italian embassies... Reuters reporters heard sirens and helicopters flying overhead, and a loudspeaker announcement ordered troops at the base to load their weapons and take up defensive positions."

Al Qaeda linked terrorist leader captured in Libya; Obama administration quickly denies any involvement in the capture

The Obama administration is denying any involvement in a raid in Libya on Monday that resulted in the capture of Saifallah Benahssine [various spellings: Saifallah Benhassine Seif Allah Ben Hassine], aka Abou Iyadh, the top commander of Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia and a terrorist clearly linked to Al Qaeda.

Tunisia's state news agency reported that Mr. Benahssine, aka Abou Iyadh, had been captured by US and Libyan forces. But the Obama administration quickly denied any involvement in the capture.

"Contrary to media reports, US forces were not involved in any operations involving Ansar al-Sharia leader Abou Iyadh today in Libya," the US embassy in Tunis said on its Facebook page on Monday, the very same day that Mr. Iyadh was arrested. "We refer you to the Libyan authorities for any additional questions." A Pentagon spokesman issued a similar statement.

According to a UN report, Abou Iyadh - the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia - previously founded the terrorist group, the Tunisian Combatant Group, "in coordination with Al-Qaida".

From the UN report:

The Tunisian Combatant Group was listed on 10 October 2002 as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of” and “recruiting for” Usama bin Laden, Al-Qaida and the Organization of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

The Tunisian Combatant Group was created in 2000 by Seifallah ben Hassine and Tarek Maaroufi, in coordination with Al-Qaida. Seifallah ben Hassine was imprisoned in Tunisia after being captured in Turkey in 2003 for being a leader of an Al-Qaida-affiliated organization. The strategy of the Tunisian Combatant Group was set during a meeting in Khost, Afghanistan, during which it declared its determination to support Usama bin Laden.

The Tunisian Combatant Group has organized recruitment of volunteers for training in Al-Qaida-related camps in Afghanistan. Most of the members of this group trained in Afghanistan before returning to Europe.

The Tunisian Combatant Group had links with the two Tunisian attackers that killed Ahmad Shah Massoud, an anti-Taliban leader in Afghanistan, in September 2001. Members of the Tunisian Combatant Group have also given logistical support to Algerians belonging to the Organization of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb...

The Tunisian Combatant Group coordinates with a number of other listed entities in the Maghreb, such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and the Organization of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

The presence of Al Qaeda in Libya is not a new phenomenon; a whole host of Al Qaeda operatives have streamed into Libya ever since the Obama administration helped overthrow the previous Libyan regime. A number of these al Qaeda operatives were behind the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four Americans. However, the Obama administration's quick denial of any involvement in the recent raid in Libya that resulted in the capture of Abou Iyadh, is, nevertheless interesting - although this too is not a new phenomenon.

The Obama administration, in the past, has openly expressed a reluctance to hunt down militants in Libya, including those responsible for the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, for fear that such operations might not sit well with officials in the Libyan government, who fear that allowing such operations in Libya might destabilize, and bring down their fragile government - a government, which just happens to be riddled with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

The same phenomenon still holds true today: The Obama administration does not want to stir up any bad feelings with the Libyan government. More importantly, the Obama administration does not want to stir up any bad feelings with the terrorist groups operating inside Libya that are not only wreaking havoc and destruction upon the country but are also pulling some of the strings inside the Libyan government. Hence, the administration's rapid and urgent denial of any involvement in the recent raid in Libya to capture Abou Iyadh.

The question, however, arises whether the White House' failure, last year, to send forces to rescue the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks, was also due to similar anxieties, namely that such an operation might not sit well with the Libyan government, the Libyan people, and the terrorist groups inside Libya.

It is also quite possible, however, that the President's reluctance to send forces into Benghazi to rescue the four Americans was simply due to the fact that he had promised that the US involvement in the Libyan rebellion would not entail sending boots on the ground in Libya, and he did not want to break this pledge, especially when the 2012 Presidential election was right around the corner.

Two American basketball players briefly detained in Benghazi, without explanation - Two teachers from Britain & New Zealand killed in Western Libya

A British man and a New Zealand woman, both teachers, were found shot to death near an oil and gas complex in western Libya, a Libyan security official said Thursday. In a separate incident, the AFP reported that Libyan security forces on Thursday briefly detained two Americans playing for a basketball team in Benghazi. The Libyans did not offer up a reason for the detention.

The unidentified men, who play for Benghazi's Al-Hilal, "were picked up while they were practising near Garyounes University," said one of the school's security officials.

"They were arrested in the company of two Libyans and were freed after being questioned," the source said without explaining why they had been picked up.

The State Department and Britain's Foreign Office both said they were investigating the matter.

The latest incidents comes less than a month after an American teacher was shot to death while jogging in Benghazi, and less than a week after four U.S. military personnel were taken into custody by Libyan authorities and held for several hours before being released.

The AFP noted that four US military personnel were briefly detained on Friday near Sabratha, 60 kilometres (36 miles) west of Tripoli, without any reason being given.

The New York Times reported that the four were attached to the US embassy's security team and had been working on scenarios for a theoretical evacuation of US government employees in the country.

The US ambassador and three other Americans were killed in September 2012 when militants assaulted the US consulate in Benghazi...

Since the revolution that ousted and killed long-time dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011, Libya's authorities have struggled to establish security in the country.

US soldier and two coalition troops killed in roadside bombing in Kabul, as attacks continue to escalate

Three NATO military personnel, including one American, were killed in a roadside car bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan on Friday. At least six civilians also died in the explosion which occurred while a convoy of armored vehicles was driving along a highway near Camp Phoenix, an American military base in Kabul. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

Over the last week and half, 13 NATO troops have been killed in Afghanistan.

The attack on Friday comes just two days after US diplomats and embassy staffers in the US embassy in Kabul were sent rushing to bomb shelters when rockets struck the US embassy compound.

The AP noted on Wednesday that "Afghan insurgents have increased attacks in recent months, intensifying a campaign to regain territory as foreign forces draw down ahead of full withdrawal at the end of 2014."

Two rockets hit US Embassy in Kabul on Christmas Day, as attacks continue to increase ahead of Obama's 2014 timetable

From NBC News:

Two rockets hit the U.S. Embassy compound in Afghanistan [on Christmas] just before dawn Wednesday, an embassy spokesperson said. A source said the rockets did not cause any damage to the embassy, but rather impacted the ground within the compound perimeter.

Additionally, the AP reported:

A bicycle bomb was remotely detonated in front of a restaurant... 60 kilometers east of Kabul, killing six people and wounding 13.

Two of the killed were policemen and four were civilians... The attack also wounded 13 civilians, including several children.

Earlier in the day, a roadside bombing in eastern Kabul wounded three Afghan policemen...

Afghan insurgents have increased attacks in recent months, intensifying a campaign to regain territory as foreign forces draw down ahead of full withdrawal at the end of 2014.

BNO News reported that the rocket attack on the US embassy "was followed by a tip that led Afghan police officers to an improvised explosive device (IED) in the vicinity of the embassy compound... The device exploded at around 7:30 a.m. local time while officers were attempting to defuse it, seriously injuring four of them."

ABC News reported on the embassy attack:

The explosions sent staff at the embassy – who live on the same compound during their off-hours – scurrying to bomb shelters for cover.

The AFP reported:

The mortar rockets sent US diplomats rushing for shelter as the heavily-fortified embassy in the city center sounded its emergency sirens and loudspeakers broadcast a "duck and cover" alarm warning...

Previous Taliban mortar attacks on Kabul have lacked accuracy, and the Christmas Day attacks will raise concerns that the militants have improved their ability to launch and direct the rockets.

Obama staffers, Secret Service spending quality Christmas time with Obama, away from their families

A Time magazine article in 2009 noted that, during his Presidency, Ronald Reagan "remained in Washington over Christmas — reportedly so members of the Secret Service could be near their families."

Likewise, the GOP-USA website noted last year: "Although President Reagan could have spent his White House Christmases with family at his beloved ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif., he instead stayed in Washington, D.C. This way, his sacrifice allowed Secret Service agents and other aides to spend Christmas at home with their families. He was a thoughtful person."

The GOP website made no mention of President Obama, and his luxurious holiday getaways, but others have pointed out that - unlike the thoughtful Ronald Reagan - Obama spends his Christmas holidays in Hawaii, far from Washington DC. Consequently, the secret service, and other members of the White House staff, bid farewell to their families and spend the holiday with Mr. Obama, tending to his every need.

And, in the holiday spirit of giving, taxpayers gift Mr. Obama with their hard-earned money to pay for the extra security detail that protects him during his golfing excursions and his basketball, beach and shave ice outings etc. The taxpayers also pay for various other expenditures of Obama's luxurious holiday get-aways.

And although the Secret Service, and the rest of the White House staffers, may not be spending Christmas with their families, they do get to spend quality holiday time with Obama! And that experience, no doubt, far surpasses all other forms of enjoyment, including the most memorable and intimate family get-togethers.

To top it all off, American taxpayers have been given the unique privilege to partake in this incredible and lavish experience, and to share in this most extravagant, enormous and grand expenditure!

It can't possibly get any better than that!

Poll: Support for Obamacare reaches new low

Support for Obamacare has reached a new low, according to a new CNN/ORC poll released on Monday.

62% of the CNN poll respondents say they are opposed to Obamacare, while only 35% say they are in favor of the new law.

Every CNN/ORC poll, from the middle of March of 2010, when Obamacare was about to be signed into law, and when the polls were first taken, until now, revealed that a significant majority of Americans are opposed to the new law. But 62% is a new high for the CNN poll. And, it bears mentioning that CNN is a Liberal news organization which tries its utmost to cast the best possible light on President Obama.

Obama signs up for Obamacare, excludes family, and manages to avoid security-flawed, glitched website

President Obama over the weekend enrolled in one of the new health insurance exchanges created by Obamacare, a White House aide said Monday.

The White House aide added that, “The act of the president signing up for insurance coverage through the DC exchange is symbolic since the president's health care will continue to be provided by the military... The President selected a bronze plan.”

The White House aide seemed to suggest that the President's decision to choose the bronze plan, one of the cheapest plans available, was due to the fact that the President's enrollment was only symbolic, since he and his family already receive their insurance coverage through the military.

Incidentally, countless Americans, in the individual insurance market, have been dropped from their insurance plans and forced to purchase more expensive plans as a result of Obamacare, but, luckily for Mr. Obama, he was able to choose the plan that he liked... [The government has since revised its rules to let insurance companies, in the individual market, offer the original plans for one more year. After the year is up..., knows.]

The President, however, excluded the First Lady and his daughters from the symbolic sign-up and did not enroll them in the new plan, the White House said.

Apparently, when it comes to symbolic gestures, Obama prefers to make small, token, and less expensive gestures that involve only himself - hence the decision to exclude his family from the insurance exchange.

The President was also spared the pain and agony of having to sign up online via the technically-glitched, security-flawed Obamacare and exchange websites. Instead of enrolling online, a White House staffer went down to the DC exchange and signed up for Obama. A White House official offered the following explanation:

"Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up. As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”

The end result is that Obama's personal information still remains safe and secure, which is more than I can say for the thousands of Americans who sign up online.

Ultimately, all of the above just proves one thing: What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander........

Obama heads to Hawaii Golf course after being updated on failed attempt to evacuate endangered US citizens in South Sudan

The White House released a statement on Saturday reassuring the American people that President Obama had been briefed about the attack on four US service members who tried unsuccessfully to evacuate American citizens in Bor, South Sudan. The President received a briefing on Friday evening, shortly after he arrived in Hawaii for his holiday vacation. And, prior to his golf outing on Saturday morning, he received some additional updates.

"Last night, upon landing in Hawaii, President Obama was updated on Air Force One on the status of the four American service members who were wounded attempting to evacuate American citizens in Bor, South Sudan," the White House statement read. "He directed his national security team to ensure the safety of our military personnel, and to continue to work with the United Nations to evacuate our citizens from Bor.... The President was briefed on the status of our military personnel, and the safety of our citizens in Bor and U.S. personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Juba."

Apparently satisfied that he had addressed the dire situation facing U.S. personnel in Bor, South Sudan, and that he had ordered his administration to ensure their safety, the President headed out to the Golf course Saturday morning after receiving some additional updates.

"Obama, in white golf shirt, hat and sunglasses, was all smiles as he drove past reporters accompanying him to the coastal golf course," the AP reported.

"Last year, Obama had to temporarily abandon his vacation to fly home amid a congressional standoff over the so-called fiscal cliff," the AP noted. "The year before, a showdown over payroll tax cuts forced him to delay the start of his Hawaii hiatus. In 2010, it was congressional wrangling over repeal of the ban on gays in the military and other issues that delayed the trip. And in 2009, Senate deliberations over Obama's signature health care law meant that Honolulu had to wait another few days."

But apparently, Mr. Obama has no plans to return to Washington DC in the midst of his current Hawaii vacation just so he can properly deal with the dire security threat facing U.S personnel in South Sudan. Trivial matters can wait till after the vacation has ended.

"Throughout his vacation," the AP notes, "Obama will continue to get regular briefings from advisers traveling with him, White House officials said. Obama and his supporters were hoping those routine updates wouldn't interfere with regular rounds of golf and family outings for shave ice, the Hawaii version of a snow cone."

Judging from the President's actions, or his lack of action, on the evening of September 11, 2012, when terrorists in Benghazi killed four Americans, it is safe to assume that Obama's Hawaii golf excursions and his family outings for shave ice will resume without interference.

Obama's first day of vacation is proof of that.

Obama, Washington Post's Liar of the Year!

President Obama has uttered a myriad of lies over the course of his political career. But three lies, among Obama's seemingly endless stream of lies, have the prestigious honor of being among the Washington Post's top ten lies of 2013.

David Letterman might want to use this for his Top Ten list. Heh......

The three Obama lies on the Washington Post's Top Ten list:

1) “If you like your health-care plan [and doctor], you can keep it.”

2) “The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

3) “The Capitol Hill janitors just got a pay cut.”

In lie number 3, President Obama claimed that the janitors working on Capital Hill were facing a pay cut as a result of the sequester. [The sequester, incidentally, was a ridiculous idea crafted by the White House.]

"Starting tomorrow, everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol..., [are] going to have less pay!" Obama exclaimed in March of this year. "The janitors... just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that! That’s real!"

However, Obama's statement was false. "Capitol Hill administrative officials even issued a statement saying the president’s remarks were 'not true' ", the Washington Post writes. "Then the White House tried to argue that janitors at least faced a loss of overtime. That was not correct either. The episode was emblematic of the administration’s sequester rhetoric."

In truth, the President has uttered so many lies this year and over the course of his political career, that it seems a bit humorous to choose just 3 lies from 2013 and thereby absolve him of the myriad of other lies he has made. Nevertheless, the question arises whether this most deserving honor from the Washington Post might influence Time Magazine to select Barack Obama as its Person of the Year in 2013.

Time Magazine chose Obama as its Person of the Year in 2012 and 2008. And, as I noted last year, "virtue" is not necessarily the deciding factor used by the magazine to choose its person of the year, as evidenced by the slew of heinous individuals who have been bestowed with this honor in the past, including the late Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

Hence, Obama's unique ability to lie over and over again without even batting an eyelash might very well qualify him to be Time Magazine's Person of the Year for the third time in six years. Obama is clearly deserving of the award; it behooves the editors of the magazine to join their counterparts over at the Washington Post, and to honor the Liar of the Year as their Person of the Year once again!

Obama postponed Obamacare, EPA rules till after 2012 election

From the Washington Post:

The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 2012 election, according to documents and interviews with current and former administration officials.

Some agency officials were instructed to hold off submitting proposals to the White House for up to a year to ensure that they would not be issued before voters went to the polls, the current and former officials said.

The delays meant that rules were postponed or never issued. The stalled regulations included crucial elements of the Affordable Care Act, what bodies of water deserved federal protection, pollution controls for industrial boilers and limits on dangerous silica exposure in the workplace.

The Obama administration has repeatedly said that any delays until after the election were coincidental and that such decisions were made without regard to politics. But seven current and former administration officials told The Washington Post that the motives behind many of the delays were clearly political, as Obama’s top aides focused on avoiding controversy before his reelection...

Those findings are bolstered by a new report from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent agency that advises the federal government on regulatory issues. The report is based on anonymous interviews with more than a dozen senior agency officials who worked with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which oversees the implementation of federal rules.

The report said internal reviews of proposed regulatory changes “took longer in 2011 and 2012 because of concerns about the agencies issuing costly or controversial rules prior to the November 2012 election.”...

Ronald White, who directs regulatory policy at the advocacy group Center for Effective Government, said the “overt manipulation of the regulatory review process by a small White House office” raises questions about how the government writes regulations...

The recent decision to bring on Democratic strategist John Podesta as a senior White House adviser is likely to accelerate the number of new rules and executive orders [now that President Obama is safely ensconced in his second term], given Podesta’s long-standing support for using executive action to achieve the president’s goals despite congressional opposition....

In September of 2011, former Vice President Al Gore excoriated Mr. Obama when the latter ordered the EPA to postpone certain environmental regulations. Mr. Gore - who previously praised Obama on environmental issues - accused the President of bowing "to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new clean air standards." But Mr. Obama countered that claim by insisting that he was simply putting the regulations on hold in order to create jobs. However, it has now been confirmed by current and former administration officials that President Obama was lying at the time, and that Al Gore's assessment was off the mark. For ultimately Obama's true intention for postponing the regulations was to ensure that the regulations would not be issued before voters went to the polls.

Podesta portfolio to include executive actions, Heh

From the Politico:

John Podesta, a Democratic Party heavyweight and former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, has agreed to serve as a counselor to President Barack Obama, according to officials familiar with the move.

Podesta will return to the White House as Obama struggles to regain his credibility after the troubled rollout of HealthCare.gov. The president has already recalled Phil Schiliro, a former legislative affairs director, to serve as the White House’s point person on Obamacare policy...

Podesta's portfolio will include Obamacare and executive actions — a concession that the White House expects Obama's legislative agenda to continue to get nowhere in Congress, according to one source familiar with the plans.

Podesta's office space hasn't yet been assigned, but he will work out of the West Wing, the source said.

With his approval ratings at an all-time low, and his administration awash in a slew of scandals, and his signature health care law beset with all kinds of problems, President Obama is desperately seeking help.

Obama is hoping that John Podesta, the man who helped the Clinton administration extract itself from various quagmires, and scandals - including the Whitewater and Travelgate scandals - can offer him the same kind of assistance.

Politico also noted that "Podesta's portfolio will include Obamacare and executive actions."

'Executive actions' is right up Podesta's alley: While serving as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Podesta advised Bill Clinton to bypass congress through the abusive and inordinate use of executive orders. In 2010, Podesta asserted that Obama should follow Clinton's path and also use his executive powers to circumvent congress. And indeed, President Obama has relied heavily on executive actions to bypass congress and the law.

Obama and Podesta, what a lovely pair!

Obamacare: Obama administration contradicting itself on paper applications, in typical fashion

From the AP:

Federal health officials, after encouraging alternate sign-up methods amid the fumbled rollout of their online insurance website, began quietly urging counselors around the country this week to stop using paper applications to enroll people in health insurance because of concerns those applications would not be processed in time.

Interviews with enrollment counselors, insurance brokers and a government official who works with navigators in Illinois reveal the latest change in direction by the Obama administration, which had been encouraging paper applications and other means because of all the problems with the federal website. Consumers must sign up for insurance under the federal health overhaul by Dec. 23 in order for coverage to start in January...

Federal health officials also discussed the issue during a conference call Wednesday with navigators and certified counselors in several states.

"They've said do not use paper applications because they won't be able to process them anywhere near in time," said John Foley, attorney and certified counselor for Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, who was on the call.

That contradicts what federal health officials told reporters during a national media call this week, during which they said there were no problems with paper applications.

"There is still time to do paper applications," Julie Bataille, communications director for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters on the call Wednesday.

A CMS spokesman declined to comment directly on the issue Friday when asked whether they discouraged navigators from using paper applications...

In early November, President Barack Obama himself encouraged paper applications as one of several alternatives to the federal website.

"I just want to remind everybody that they can still apply for coverage by phone, by mail, in person," Obama said on Nov. 4 in remarks to Affordable Care Act supporters at a Washington hotel.

The paper application problem comes as insurance agents and brokers are dealing with a massive backlog of applications that they can't process because of problems with the federal website, including incomplete enrollment files sent electronically to insurance companies...

Kelly Fristoe, an insurance agent in Wichita Falls, Texas, has submitted 25 paper applications since early October and hasn't received a response from federal health officials yet.

"At this time, we are not using any paper applications," he said.

That also contradicts what CMS told reporters this week.

Bataille, the spokeswoman for the federal agency, said all paper applications received during October have been processed.

Julie Bataille was hired in 2011 to be the spokeswoman for CMS, the federal agency tasked with developing and operating the HealthCare.gov website. And, apparently, she shares a common attribute with her boss over at the White House: President Obama and Julie Bataille both have a penchant for being untruthful.

Bataille previously served as Deputy Director of Communications for Vice President Al Gore and the Gore 2000 Presidential Campaign. According to the CMS website, Bataille "coordinated proactive outreach of key Gore messages." Perhaps her aversion to telling the inconvenient truth is something she picked up while serving under Gore.

Bataille also served as Assistant Press Secretary at the White House during the Clinton administration, and she worked in the office of Joe Biden when he was still a US Senator, which might also explain her mendacity. However, working with Obama these past two and a half years certainly helped Bataille consummate and perfect the art of fibbing.

According to the CMS website, Julie Bataille is also an accredited member of the Public Relations Society of America. Hmmm, prevarication might be an essential part of Public Relations, but the inconvenient truth is Bataille still needs to improve on her PR work just a tad bit.....

Executions in Iran have escalated during Rouhani Presidency

According to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, at least 529 people have been executed in Iran this year, and more than 300 of the executions took place after Hassan Rouhani ascended to the Presidency in August. Other estimates put the number of executions in Iran, this year, at more than 600.

Iran activists also point out that executions in Iran have increased markedly since the Obama administration and the Iranian regime began its most recent faze of negotiations, which concluded with a deal to give the Mullocracy the green light to enrich uranium while easing sanctions against them.

Benghazi security excluded from State Department's frivolous spending sprees

The Weekly Standard reported last week that, in late September, as "the federal government's fiscal year was drawing to a close and the threat of a government shut down was increasing," the State Department agreed to purchase over a million dollars of artistic work to place at several U.S. embassies and consulates around the globe. The purchases, part of the State Department's Art for Embassies program, included a granite sculpture produced by Irish-born artist Sean Scully, at the cost of $1,000,000, which will be installed at the new U.S. Embassy in London.

The Weekly Standard noted that "although the form of the Scully sculpture is not identified in the award notification, the artist has produced granite sculptures before, including this one entitled "Wall of Light Cubed 2" in 2008 - or, as Front Page magazine calls it, "A pile of rocks".

It is worthy to note, that in the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, the State Department initially cited budget concerns as the reason it did not respond to requests for additional security at the U.S. consulate in the months prior to the attacks. And yet, Front Page Magazine notes, the State Department didn't have any budgetary concerns when it spent, and squandered, a $1,000,000 for "a pile of rocks."

Moreover, the Weekly Standard reported that the State Department's 2013 budget request included a total of $2.5 Million for the Art in Embassies program.

Bloomberg news noted last year that "through the State Department’s art-in-embassies program, US ambassadors can surround themselves with the finest works of art." Bloomberg also noted that many US ambassadors, who were appointed by President Obama, received their appointments as payback for the huge amounts of cash they brought in to Obama's Presidential campaign coffers. Hence, it certainly goes without saying that, on the basis of their campaign-bundling activities on behalf of Obama, the aforementioned ambassadors are clearly deserving of being surrounded by the finest works of art - or, the finest pile of rocks.....

On the flip side, it is highly doubtful that any of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks brought in any significant amounts of cash to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, hence there was clearly no reason to surround these people with the finest security - or even adequate security.

But truth be told, the State Department's decision to deny requests for additional security in Benghazi had nothing to do with budgetary concerns, but rather it was due to various other motives:

1) As others have noted previously, Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year that one of the primary reasons why ambassador Chris Stevens traveled to Benghazi prior to the attack was because the Obama administration, according to Stevens, had plans to convert the temporary facility in Benghazi to a permanent State Department facility - and Stevens traveled to Benghazi to help facilitate those plans.

And thus, the State Department was reluctant to comply with the request to send additional security personnel to Benghazi to defend against the increasing al Qaeda threat, because it would have most certainly stonewalled the administration's plans to establish a permanent presence there. If the increasing threat of al Qaeda, in Benghazi, required additional security personnel, how could the Obama administration proceed with its plans to establish a permanent State Department facility there? How could the Obama administration make the case that setting up a permanent and larger facility was a safe, feasible and viable plan?

2) The Obama administration, on a number of occasions, has expressed a reluctance to take necessary action in Benghazi for fear that such action might not sit well with the new Libyan government. Hence, sending additional security personnel to the US consulate, which already had a Libyan security presence there - albeit a Libyan security presence with ties to militants - was something the Obama administration was not keen on doing because it might agitate the Libyan government.

There are additional motives that we can add to the mix. But the bottom line is the budgetary concern cited by the State Department was clearly nothing more than a lame excuse for denying Ambassador Stevens' urgent requests for additional security.

Here are a few more examples of the State Department's unnecessary and frivolous spending sprees:

Frontpage magazine notes that the Obama administration is spending millions of dollars to help rebuild Islamic mosques and minarets in 27 different countries.

According to the State Department, the aforementioned projects are  “cultural preservation” projects designed to “fight Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders.”

Judging from the fanatical, extremist leaders that Obama has chosen to rebuild relationships with, it is clear that the tax-payer money being squandered on these kind of projects is money well-spent. Ahem. Heh....

Frontpage Magazine also notes:

"While the State Department was busy repairing Egyptian mosques, scores of Egypt’s Coptic Christian churches were being burned down by Muslim mobs....

"In 2010 the State Department provided monetary support for saving three mosques on Zanzibar Island off the coast of Tanzania... That generous American donation was repaid in July 2012 when Muslim mobs, shouting, 'Away with the church — we do not want infidels to spoil our community, especially our children,' burned down three Christian churches on Zanzibar Island."

"In 2011 the State Department provided funds to restore the 15th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina State in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, an area which has become a virtual killing field for Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, led by the al-Qaeda-linked terror group Boko Haram.

"Since 2009 over 288 Christian churches in Nigeria have been burned, thousands of Christian-owned homes destroyed, and over 2,000 Christians killed, including in July 2012 when fifty members of a northern Nigerian church were burned to death in their pastor’s house."

And, apparently the State Department has an affinity for booze expenditures too:

Fox News reported:

"The department spent about $180,000 on alcohol in September and $400,000 in all of 2012, three times the $118,000 spent in 2008.

"The booze tab reportedly has risen every year since 2008, but the end of fiscal 2012 saw a particular spike. Part of the reason could be that, toward the end of the year, federal agencies often try to spend what's left in their budgets in order to reduce the risk that Congress will target them for cuts.

"Records for U.S. embassies show that alcohol spending went up at American posts around the world. The purchases included nearly $16,000 for bourbon and whiskey in Moscow, and more than $22,000 for wine in Tokyo...

"[State Department Spokesperson Marie] Harf said that the September alcohol purchases were made after the department's fiscal operating plan was approved by Congress, which coincidentally ended up being right before the partial government shutdown."

But of course, booze, and the fine art works that surround Obama's campaign-bundling US ambassadors, and the Islamic Mosque restoration projects are far more important than the lives of four lowly American citizens in Benghazi - especially when these American citizens went to Benghazi for the sole purpose of helping Obama rebuild a new Libya - a new Libya, which, unfortunately for the four dead Americans, is being dedicated to the Al Qaeda movement and to the Al Qaeda flag.........

Harry Reid in September: Staffers will join Obamacare exchanges! - Video

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has exempted some of his staff from having to purchase health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, news media outlets reported on Wednesday, despite having said in September that senate staff members would join the Obamacare exchanges because, "That's what the law says."

"Let's stop these really juvenile political games — the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff," Reid told Reporters in September. "We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."

Technically, congressional committee staffers and leadership staffers - unlike ordinary congressional staffers - can be exempted from joining the health care exchanges due to a loophole in the law that allows these exemptions. But Reid's statement in September was clearly mendacious.



Sen. Ted Cruz issued a statement regarding Reid's decision to exempt staff members from the Obamacare exchanges:

"Sen. Reid's decision to exempt his staff from Obamacare exchanges is the clearest example yet of Obamacare's failures and Washington hypocrisy," Cruz said. "[Reid's] staff worked to pass it and continue to promote it, now they don't want to be part of it because it's a disaster. No one wants to lose their plans, pay higher premiums, higher deductibles, and have healthcare choices taken away from them. But, by passing Obamacare that’s exactly what Leader Reid and his staff did to millions of Americans. Now they understandably don't want to live with it. The only fair path forward is to repeal Obamacare, in its in entirety, for everyone."

Kerry, Obama & Rouhani boast about Iran nuclear agreement - Video Spoof

Video Spoof of Secretary of State John Kerry, President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani boasting about the recent nuclear agreement that was signed between the Obama administration and the Khamenei regime that would 1) allow the regime to continue to enrich uranium, 2) loosen the sanctions imposed on Iran, 3) and create an irreparable fissure in the sanctions coalition.

Iran urges Afghanistan not to sign security pact with US

Iran’s foreign ministry urged the Afghan government not to sign a security pact with the U.S. that would allow a residual force of US and coalition troops to remain in Afghanistan after NATO withdraws from the country in 2014.

The Obama administration - wary of repeating the blunder it made when it insisted that no residual U.S. force would remain in Iraq after US troops left the country in 2011 - would like to leave behind a residual force of US and coalition troops in Afghanistan post 2014. But the Iranian regime, a primary backer of the Afghan insurgency, would prefer that no such arrangement be made, despite the fact that the Iranian regime is enjoying a cozy relationship with President Obama.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran does not consider the signing and approval of the pact useful for the long term expediencies and interests of Afghanistan," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said Tuesday in her weekly press conference.

Did Obama reside with his uncle after his uncle received a deportation order? Is that why the White House lied about the matter?

From the Washington Post:

President Obama's uncle said at a deportation hearing Tuesday that Obama stayed with him while he was a student at Harvard Law School in the 1980s -- despite the White House having said that Obama never met the man.

Onyango “Omar” Obama, 69, was arrested for drunk driving in 2011 and faced deportation after living in the United States for five decades. The judge decided to let the Kenyan national remain in the United States.

According to the Boston Globe, Omar Obama testified [at the hearing] that the president stayed with him in Cambridge [for three weeks] when he came to attend Harvard Law School [ in the late 1980s.]

[Onyango's] landlord, Alfred Ouma, who served as a witness at the hearing, confirmed that Barack Obama lived with his Uncle Omar....

The White House said following Omar Obama's arrest that he and the president had never met, [and that the] president was not close to his father's side of the family given his father's absence in his life.

The White House did not immediately comment on Omar Obama's claim [and the landlord's claim].

Weasel Zippers asks:

Why lie about this, just to not seem to have connection to illegal uncle? It’s a dumb lie, especially if uncle, et. al, wouldn’t back you up.

The Blaze also wonders "why the White House would even bother to tell such a seemingly inconsequential lie?"

But perhaps Obama had a good reason to lie, aside from the fact that he felt uncomfortable admitting he had met an uncle who was residing in the US illegally - and aside from the fact that Obama happens to be a habitual and casual liar.

The Boston Globe notes the following:

Immigration judges’ rulings obtained by the Globe through the Freedom of Information Act show that Onyango Obama was ordered deported in 1986 and 1989 and then lost his appeal in 1992. The issue of deportation arose again after Onyango Obama was arrested for drunken driving in 2011 in Framingham, where he lived.

In January, the Boston Globe noted:

According to the earlier judges’ decisions obtained by the Globe, an immigration judge first ordered [Onyango] deported in October 1986 because he had no legal basis to stay and no connection to the United States such as US-born children. Obama came to America at age 17, in October 1963, to enroll in a Cambridge boys’ school. Federal records show he was supposed to have left the United States by Dec. 24, 1970.

Instead, [Onyango] Obama worked from 1973 to September 1984, when immigration officials found him, according to the court’s decision. In 1989, the judge again ordered him deported...

Barack Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. If he stayed with his uncle in Cambridge when he came to attend Harvard Law School, that means he stayed with his uncle after the latter had already received a deportation order. I'm not sure whether it was against the law for Barack Obama to board with an uncle who was residing in this country illegally, but the President's reason for lying about the matter is pretty obvious.

Incidentally, I noted in December of 2011:

Shortly after his arrest on DUI charges in 2011, Onyango Obama was asked whether he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail.

"I think I will call the White House," he replied.

However, he was later detained without bail by Federal immigration officials for defying an earlier deportation order to return to his native country, Kenya.

But, a little more than two weeks after his arrest, he was quietly released from prison.

Federal immigration officials refused to divulge whether he posted bail........ Source - Boston Globe

And, I suppose we'll never know whether he made that call to the White House or not...... Heh.....

Today the Boston Globe quoted a court official who said that, after his arrest in 2011, Onyango "served a year’s probation, attended an alcohol education class, paid fees, and the case was dismissed."

Obama: I'll fight another THREE YEARS to make sure Obamacare is working

More than three years have passed since Obamacare was signed into law and yet the new health care legislation is still plagued with all sorts of problems. But President Obama reassured the American people, during a White House event on Tuesday, that there is no need to worry because, if necessary, he will fight another three years to make sure the new health care law is working.

"If I've got to fight another three years to make sure this law works," the President said, "then that's what I'll do, that's what we'll do."

Heh.... He'll spend another three years to make sure Obamacare is working.......

UN Report: Attacks against Aid Workers in Afghanistan escalate as Obama continues to hand over security to Afghan forces

According to a UN report released over the weekend, there were 237 attacks on Afghanistan’s aid workers from January through November of 2013, which left 36 people dead, 46 wounded, 72 abducted and 24 detained. Last year, from January through December, there were 175 attacks on Afghanistan’s aid workers, which left 11 people dead, 26 wounded and 44 detained or abducted.

U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Afghanistan, Mark Bowden, said that the increase in attacks on Afghanistan's aid workers was a result of the Obama administration handing over the country's security to the Afghan security forces

"I am extremely concerned with this trend at a time when the country is in the midst of a difficult transition that may lead to increased humanitarian needs," Mr. Bowden said in a statement. “The nature of the fighting has changed. You have more disseminated ground-level fighting than you’ve had before, and this has come as a result of a change of tactics by handing over the fighting to the Afghan national security forces. So civilian casualties have increased dramatically this year, so obviously you’re seeing more widespread displacement of people as well.”

According to a mid-year report released by the UN in July, Civilian casualties in the first six months of 2013 increased 23% compared to the same period in 2012.

A UN official said at the time that, “The growing loss of life and injuries to Afghan women and children in 2013 is particularly disturbing. Deaths and injuries to women and children increased by 38 per cent in the first half of 2013 reflecting a grim reality of the conflict today in Afghanistan.”