Michelle Obama #BringBackOurGirls twitter pic - Abedini, Gross, Tahmooressi, Levinson - Total Hypocrisy!

Michelle Obama last week posted an Instagram photo on her twitter account of herself holding up a placard reading, "Bring back our girls", in response to the tragic abduction of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls last month by the Boko Haram Islamic terrorist organization. "It's time to #BringBackOurGirls", the First Lady added.

The question arises, however: To whom was Michelle Obama directing her message? To whom was she calling upon to bring back the girls?

The person largely responsible for spreading the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag campaign, is Ramaa Mosley, a Los Angeles mother of two, who wrote the following message to her readers on her BringBackOurGirls Facebook page:

What can you do?

People of Nigeria are marching in the streets to demand the rescue of the 300 school girls that were kidnapped. Starting now, let us march on social media... Include on your wall a link to the petition for people to sign asking The White House and World leaders to act.

WHITE HOUSE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call#call
SENATORS: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
CONGRESSMAN: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
STATE DEPARTMENT: Tweet @johnkerry

Apparently, Mosley was primarily targeting the White House with her BringBackOurGirls campaign, and pleading with President Obama and his administration to act immediately to rescue the abducted schoolgirls.

However, to the best of my knowledge, the First Lady is still on speaking terms with her husband. Hence, if the First Lady's twitter pic was intended to send a message to President Obama to rescue the Nigerian schoolgirls, she didn't need to resort to twitter to make that request; she could have approached the President and made the same request face-to-face; it's a lot simpler, more personable and certainly more effective.

We must assume, then, that Michelle Obama was directing her twitter message, not to her husband, but to the Nigerian government and to other world leaders, and pleading with them to help rescue the schoolgirls.

However, if that, indeed, was her intention, the First Lady now faces the sad prospect that the Nigerian government and world leaders will respond to her twitter pic by calling both her and the President 'Hypocrites'.

"Why are you asking us to help rescue these girls," the aforementioned leaders can easily respond, "when you two hypocrites refuse to lift your fingers to obtain the release of your own fellow countrymen - Saeed Abedini, Robert Levinson, Alan Gross, Andrew Tahmooressi and other American citizens - who are languishing in captivity on foreign soil under the most frightening, horrific and inhumane conditions?! Please tell us why?! We'd really like to know!"

Additionally, the aforementioned world leaders might mention the Obama administration's failure to launch a rescue operation to save the lives of four Americans who were killed in the terrorist attacks in Benghazi; they might want to mention that, and the ensuing cover-up of the facts surrounding the attacks.

However, there already is enough ammo to dish out without having to cite the Benghazi attacks, hence mentioning Benghazi would be superfluous and unnecessary.

Nevertheless, the second explanation as to why Michelle Obama posted the aforementioned twitter pic also appears to be incorrect because she would never call on world leaders to rescue the schoolgirls while knowing full well that they might call her and her husband out on their hypocrisy.

However, the third, and most likely rationale behind the aforementioned twitter pic is that Michelle Obama wasn't the least bit interested in helping to rescue the schoolgirls, but rather she was doing what she and her husband - the Campaigner-in-Chief - do best: engaging in another one of their typical and vintage PR stunts.

It goes without saying that the last explanation is the most simplest, logical and likely explanation of 'em all. Hence, my apologies to you for positing the first two explanations and for giving you the runaround.

Sorry, my bad........

Update: While noting the hypocrisy of Barack and Michelle Obama, and the latters' tweet in which she addresses the kidnapping of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls' by the Boko Haram terrorists, I forgot to mention that the Obama administration refused to label Boko Haram a terrorist organization until November of last year, despite the fact that thousands of innocent civilians had already been murdered in cold blood by Boko Haram, and despite Boko Haram's numerous attacks on Christian churches.

Several reasons have been proffered to explain the administration's egregious decision not to label the aforementioned cold-blooded terrorist organization a terrorist organization. However, none of this should come as any surprise to anyone who is familiar with the President's convoluted mindset.

It is also worthy to note what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in March of 2009, according to a Reuters news report, namely that the Obama administration had dropped the words "war on terror" from its lexicon.

"The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously," Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his "global war on terror.

Likewise, the Washington Post reported at the time:

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase "global war on terror"...

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term... 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

A spade is a spade, an orange is an orange, the Republicans are hostage-takers and a terrorist..., well..., I'm not sure what a terrorist is, but one thing is certain: a terrorist is definitely not a terrorist. Period!

Iran unveils copied version of captured US Drone

From the AFP:

Iran said on Sunday it has succeeded in copying an [advanced radar-evading] US drone it captured in December 2011, with state television broadcasting images apparently showing the replicated aircraft.

Tehran captured the US RQ-170 Sentinel in 2011 while it was in its airspace...

"Our engineers succeeded in breaking the drone's secrets and copying them. It will soon take a test flight," an officer said in the footage.

The broadcast showed supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's visit to an exhibition organized by the powerful Revolutionary Guards air wing about Iran's military advances, particularly regarding ballistic missiles and drones.

Footage showed two nearly identical drones, [the captured US drone, and Iran's duplicate drone].

"This drone is very important for reconnaissance missions," Khamenei said, standing in front of the Iranian copy of the American unmanned aircraft.

Iran said it had taken control of the ultra hi-tech drone and forced it down in the desert where it was recovered nearly intact.

Washington said it had lost control of the aircraft...

Iran has been working to develop a significant drone programme of its own, and some of its unmanned aircraft have a range of hundreds of kilometres (miles) and are armed with missiles.

The state broadcaster also showed images that the commentary said had been recorded by an Iranian drone above a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

In the pictures, which were relatively clear, it was possible to see American personnel working on planes and helicopters aboard the vessel.

Shortly after the drone went down, President Obama pleaded with the Islamic republic to return the drone.

"We have asked for it back — we'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama told reporters at the time.

But the Iranians - who apparently do not share Obama's naivety - rebuffed his groveling and servile plea.

CNN quoted Vice President Dick Cheney as saying at the time that President Obama had three options on his desk but rejected all of them:

“They involved sending somebody in to try to recover it or, if you can’t do that, and admittedly that would be a difficult operation, he certainly could have gone in and destroyed it on the ground with an air strike,” Cheney said.

“But he didn’t take any of the options. He asked nicely for them to return it. And they aren’t going to do that,” the former Vice President said...

Instead of returning the drone, Cheney said the Iranians will likely “send it back in pieces after they’ve gotten all the intelligence they can out of it."

Regarding Obama's plea for the drone to be returned, I noted in January of 2012 as follows:

Apparently, the President's no-nonsense approach, and his stern demeanor, had the Iranians shaking in their boots.

An Iranian company announced Tuesday that it will send President Obama a toy replica of the drone, 1/80th the size of the real thing. Toy copies of the drone, bearing the inscription "We will trample the U.S," will be sold in Iranian stores for 4 or 5 dollars.

According to one report, a group of Iranian youths decided to produce and begin selling the toy.

No doubt the White House will respond in kind with a heartfelt 'Thank You' letter.

The letter, I assume, will read as follows:

The President has received your gift and is deeply appreciative of this most gracious and benevolent gesture.

Mr. Obama had requested the return of the drone, but you went one step better and exceeded all expectations with this wonderful gift. Thank you.

Enclosed you will find an assortment of Commemorative Baby Dolls of Mr. Obama that captures the "Yes, We Can" spirit of our 44th President. It is a gift from the President to you and to your beneficent regime.

Wishing you and the regime continued success.

The White House.

Scores of dead veterans do not share Obama's [feigned] confidence in Shinseki

From CNN:

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that he will not resign in the wake of his department being accused of deadly delays in health care at some of its hospitals.

"I serve at the pleasure of the president," Shinseki told the newspaper when asked whether he would step down...

The White House stood its ground when asked whether Shinseki will continue to lead the department...

"The President remains confident in Secretary Shinseki's ability to lead the department and take appropriate action," [press secretary] Jay Carney said [on Thursday], repeating the White House response this week to two veterans groups' calls for Shinseki's ouster...

On Monday, the nation's largest veteran organization, the American Legion, and another veterans group, Concerned Veterans for America, called for Shinseki's resignation.

The calls came after months of CNN reporting on U.S. veterans who have died awaiting care at VA hospitals across the country, including in Phoenix...

CNN has been reporting on delays in care and patient deaths at VA hospitals for the past six months, including at hospitals in South Carolina, Georgia and Texas.

After CNN's coverage, the VA acknowledged in April that 23 veterans had died as a result of delayed care in recent years, but sources tell CNN that number could be much higher.

In an exclusive report two weeks ago, CNN interviewed a retired VA doctor from Phoenix who charged that more than 40 American veterans have died waiting for care at the VA hospital there.

Throughout the network's reporting, CNN has submitted numerous requests for an interview with Shinseki, but in the six months that CNN has been reporting on the delays, Shinseki has yet to speak to CNN.

CNN is not alone in getting virtually no response from VA officials.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, issued this statement late Monday: "For nearly a year, we have been pleading with top department leaders and President Obama to take immediate steps to stop the growing pattern of preventable veteran deaths and hold accountable any and all VA employees who have allowed patients to slip through the cracks.

"In response, we've received disturbing silence from the White House and one excuse after another from VA."

It is both incomprehensible and difficult to believe that President Obama - over the course of the last several years, while he was feigning empathy for the plight of military veterans - was incognizant of the widespread scandalous behaviors that were taking place inside the VA, and that he was unaware of all the unwarranted and unnecessary deaths.

Moreover, Rep. Miller stated that, for nearly a year, he pleaded with Obama to address the issue, but apparently the President already had too much on his plate - various fundraisers etc. - hence he could not find the time to deal with all these unnecessary deaths.

"The President remains confident in Secretary Shinseki's ability to lead the department and take appropriate action," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday. Nevertheless, I can assure the President and Mr. Carney that the scores of military veterans who have died as a result of the scandalous behavior that has permeated the VA, do not share the President's confidence in Mr. Shinseki. Moreover, I do not believe that Mr. Obama shares his own [feigned] confidence in Mr. Shinseki, but rather, the President is supporting the VA Secretary because the latter was an Obama appointee who was tapped to lead the VA partially because he was perceived as someone who, while serving as Army Chief of Staff, did not see eye-to-eye with the Bush administration.

Hence, while Obama undoubtedly realizes that Shinseki has been an irresponsible and egregious Veterans Affairs Secretary, he will continue to support the latter because..., well, because in Obama's world, politics - and arrogance - supersedes all other matters, including matters of life and death.

The American Legion is right to call for Shinseki's resignation. However, the indifference that the President has shown to the veterans' plight, the inaction and the lack of response to the various pleas he has received to address the aforementioned problem, I believe, is also cause for Obama's resignation.

Of course, that will never happen. But I can assure you that the President, long ago, was fully aware of the VA scandal.

On the flip side, with all that was on Obama's plate - the countless fundraisers, golf outings etc. - can you really blame him for being derelict in his duties?

"But military veterans died as a result of Obama's dereliction of duty," you ask indignantly!?

True, but "What difference does it make!!?"......

Yemen isn't Benghazi, hence Obama closes the embassy there amid terrorist threat

Despite a slew of attacks against Western targets that occurred in Benghazi prior to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks - including a couple of attacks on the US consulate - the Obama administration chose not to close down the consulate due to political reasons. What's more, requests for additional security at the consulate were turned down because, after all, President Obama had supposedly ushered in a new sense of tranquility in Libya [heh], and thus providing additional security at the consulate would have reflected poorly on Mr. Obama and his Libyan policy.

However, the same can not be said of the terrorist threat in Yemen. Unlike Benghazi, where Obama's actions brought about absolute chaos and created a brand new terrorist foothold - in Yemen, it is Obama's inaction that is the problem; he didn't create the terror there, he merely allowed the terrorist threat to multiply.

Hence, the President can close down the US embassy in Yemen, if he deems it necessary, because doing so would not reflect poorly on him - because he did not create the problem there. Besides, Obama already won a second term in office, and thus he can easily close down the embassy there without suffering any political repercussions. Hence, the AFP reported on Thursday:

The US embassy was closed to the public Thursday in Yemen after a spate of attacks against foreigners.

"The embassy is closed today. And this will remain in effect until further notice," an employee at the US mission in a heavily-guarded neighborhood in northeast Sanaa, told AFP.

Police were deployed along all roads leading to the embassy and conducted a thorough inspection of vehicles in the vicinity...

State Department spokeswoman Jan Psaki said Wednesday that the embassy would be temporarily closed to the public "due to recent attacks against Western interests in Yemen".

These attacks "and information we have received have given us enough concern to take this precautionary step," she said in a statement...

The interior ministry said it was searching for suspects whose vehicles were involved in recent attacks in Sanaa after "five Al-Qaeda terrorists" were arrested in several parts of the capital...

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), [a merger of Al-Qaeda in Yemen and Saudi Arabia], is seen by the United States as the network's deadliest franchise...

AQAP leader Nasser al-Wuhayshi vowed, in a rare video appearance last month, to attack Western "crusaders" wherever they are.

Unlike Benghazi, Obama's got nothing to lose by closing the US embassy in Yemen, so, the embassy staff there, hopefully, will be spared the same fate as the Benghazi victims.

Hillary Clinton "absolutely" satisfied with Benghazi cover-up, but what difference does it make? - Video Remix

During an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked whether she was content with the Benghazi cover-up and whether she was satisfied with the answers that have come out of the Obama administration regarding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

Clinton responded: "Absolutely!"

Of course, Hillary has every reason to be satisfied. The former Secretary of State has emerged from the scandalous cover-up whole, and in one piece. On top of that, she is widely regarded as the presumptive 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee. What's more, during the White House Correspondents dinner on Saturday, President Obama gave Hillary the nod over Joe Biden when he said: "Let's face it, Fox [News], you will miss me when I'm gone; it will be harder to convince the American people that Hillary was born in Kenya."

Hence, Hillary has every reason to be satisfied.

That being said, Hillary should have given a more complete and adequate response to the ABC News' reporter's question.

When asked whether she was satisfied with the Obama administration's phony narrative on Benghazi, Clinton should have responded in typical fashion and said: "Absolutely! But what difference does it make anyway?!"

Lol......

Video remix below.

Obama: Republicans teaching candidates how to speak with 'sweeties' [women] - White House Correspondents Dinner Speech

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, President Obama took some heavy flak for addressing a female factory worker and a woman reporter as "sweeties". Cognizant that female voters might find the crass moniker disrespectful, the Politician-in-Chief quickly called the female reporter and issued an apology on her voice mail saying he was sorry for using the word "sweetie". The President added: "That's a bad habit of mine, I do it sometimes with all kinds of people" - including - as the video below indicates - Michelle Obama.

However, despite the President's tactless style of speaking with women, and the need for him to take some etiquette lessons to learn how to speak with women appropriately, Mr. Obama, at the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner on Saturday, claimed that Republicans "brought in a group consultant to teach their candidates how to speak to women." The President added derisively: "I don't know if it'll work for women, but I understand America's teenage boys are signing up to run for the Senate in droves [Laughter]."

But sadly, one thing is certain: The President is clearly not up to the task of knowing how to speak with women appropriately; his etiquette is sorely lacking. Perhaps he could benefit from a series of extensive lessons that would teach him how to speak with women in a respectful and appropriate manner. The lessons might help him, or, they might not help him - but it's certainly worth a try.......

As far as America's teenage boys are concerned, suffice it to say that, as long as the boys do not take their cue from the President - as long as they leave out the "Sweetie" references and omit the disrespectful dialogue - they should be just fine.......

Lawmakers Ask: Where Was President Obama During The Benghazi Attacks?

A headline in The Global Dispatch on Friday reads:

"Where Was President Obama During The Benghazi Attacks? Senators Graham, Ayotte And McCain Want To Know."

I can answer that question!

Here's the answer!

But apparently, while the aforementioned answer might be the most accurate answer, it is, nevertheless, not the answer that US lawmakers are seeking.

Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to President Obama on Friday asking him to corroborate a statement made by former Communications Director for the National Security Council Tommy Vietor that President Obama was absent from the White House Situation Room on the afternoon and night of September 11, 2012 — while the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was under attack.

The letter reads as follows:

Dear Mr. President,

Last night, the former Communications Director for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, stated that on the afternoon and night of September 11, 2012 — while the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was under attack — that you never visited the White House Situation Room to monitor events.

Over a year and a half has passed since the terrorist attacks, and the American people still do not have an accounting of your activities during the attack. Mr. President, can you now confirm that Mr. Vietor’s account of your absence in the White House Situation Room is accurate?

Thank you again for your attention to this matter.

In addition, the Global Dispatch noted: The above mentioned Senators also applauded news the House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will create a Select Committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Sources said Boehner wants former prosecutor Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) to lead the committee, and that preference means Gowdy is likely to preside over the effort."

In a press release on Thursday, Mr. Boehner noted that, "The House used its subpoena power to obtain documents, including emails, last year, but these emails didn’t show up until now, after a court ordered their release to an outside watchdog group."

The House Majority Leader went on to say that, "This defiance of the House’s subpoena power is the most flagrant example yet of the administration's contempt for the American people’s right to know the truth about what happened when four Americans died in a fiery terrorist attack. If the White House won’t explain it, Secretary Kerry should come to the Capitol to explain why he defied an official congressional subpoena. And the White House needs to understand that this investigation will not end until the entire truth is revealed and justice and accountability are served.”

In a press release on Friday, Mr. Boehner announced his intention to create a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

“Americans learned this week that the Obama Administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the People's House," Mr. Boehner said in the press release. "These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen. In light of these new developments, the House will vote to establish a new select committee to investigate the attack, provide the necessary accountability, and ensure justice is finally served.

“The administration's withholding of documents – emails showing greater White House involvement in misleading the American people – is a flagrant violation of trust and undermines the basic principles of oversight upon which our system of government is built. And it forces us to ask the question, what else about Benghazi is the Obama administration still hiding from the American people?.. It’s clear that questions remain, and the administration still does not respect the authority of Congress to provide proper oversight. This dismissiveness and evasion requires us to elevate the investigation to a new level. I intend for this select committee to have robust authority, and I will expect it to work quickly to get answers for the American people and the families of the victims."

“Four Americans died at the hands of terrorists nearly 20 months ago, and we are still missing answers, accountability, and justice. It’s time that change.”

But in an interview with World Net Daily, Rep. Frank Wolf "warned [that] the committee must have complete subpoaena powers and be comprised of lawmakers and staff with expertise in these types of investigations, including seasoned lawyers and investigators.

I noted on Thursday:

The newly obtained documents on Benghazi that Judicial Watch [the outside watchdog group] received have been largely redacted by the Obama administration, making it virtually impossible to probe the true nature of the White House cover-up.

Will the administration adhere to the law, obey congress' subpoena order and hand over all the documents?

Probably not; the Obama administration is not subject to the laws of the land. Nevertheless, unless congress can obtain the documents in their original, unredacted form, well - to paraphrase a quote from Hillary Clinton - what difference does it make anyway?

Ultimately, it's difficult to find out the truth when the White House has the power, and the ability, to hide the truth......

John Boehner calls on John Kerry to testify, and to explain, why the Obama administration defied Subpoena Request, withheld Benghazi Emails

In a press release on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner called on Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before Congress after the White House refused to explain why documents related to the administration’s phony explanation of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi were not sent to Congress in response to a congressional subpoena issued last year.

Judicial Watch recently obtained some of the documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. But unfortunately, the Obama administration redacted most of the information in these documents which makes it virtually impossible to probe the White House cover-up. Nevertheless, among the newly obtained, and largely redacted documents was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications in which Mr. Rhodes lists a number of strategic and political talking points to be used by the administration to deflect criticism of the President's handling of the Benghazi debacle.

Among the phony talking points that were to be used, as per Mr. Rhode's directive, was the fictitious claim that the horrific violence emanated from an anti-Islam Internet video, and was "not a broader failure of policy."

In his statement on Thursday, Mr. Boehner asserted:

“Someone needs to answer why this administration hid these documents – and tell the American people what else is being concealed.

The House used its subpoena power to obtain documents, including emails, last year, but these emails didn’t show up until now, after a court ordered their release to an outside watchdog group.

This defiance of the House’s subpoena power is the most flagrant example yet of the administration's contempt for the American people’s right to know the truth about what happened when four Americans died in a fiery terrorist attack. If the White House won’t explain it, Secretary Kerry should come to the Capitol to explain why he defied an official congressional subpoena. And the White House needs to understand that this investigation will not end until the entire truth is revealed and justice and accountability are served.”

However, as I noted earlier, the newly obtained documents on Benghazi that Judicial Watch received have been largely redacted by the Obama administration, making it virtually impossible to probe the true nature of the White House cover-up.

Will the administration adhere to the law, obey congress' subpoena order and hand over all the documents?

Probably not; the Obama administration is not subject to the laws of the land. Nevertheless, unless congress can obtain the documents in their original, unredacted form, well - to paraphrase a quote from Hillary Clinton - what difference does it make anyway?

State Department: Global terrorism spiked 43% last year; Al Qaeda & Iranian terror remained the predominant concern

Terrorist attacks worldwide increased 43% in 2013 from 2012, the State Department said in its annual report on terrorism released on Wednesday. There were 9,707 terrorist attacks around the world in 2013, resulting in more than 17,800 deaths and more than 32,500 injuries.

The 43% spike in terrorist attacks worldwide would seem to be a strong indication that President Obama's foreign policy is succeeding. Ahem......

The State Department noted, however, that, "Terrorism by non-state actors related to al-Qaeda and state-sponsored terrorism originating in Iran remained the predominant concern of the United States." [Iranian terrorism might be the "predominant concern of the United States", but it is clearly not the predominant concern of President Obama.]

"Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity", which included increasing "its presence in Africa and [attempting] to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain."

[Previous Related Posts: Iranian terror plot discovered in Bahrain

Obama: No regime change for Iran's regime changing regime! ]

"Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad."

"Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary. In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria... There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations."

"Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups. The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry."

"On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen. The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives. The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen. Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region."

"On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain... Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain. The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals."

"Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran allowed Al Qaeda facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling Al Qaeda to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria. [Related Post: Why is Iran assisting Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria? Here's why......] Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years. Al-Fadhli... assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network [in 2011]."

In Syria, "the Assad regime continued its political support to a variety of terrorist groups affecting the stability of the region and beyond, even amid significant internal unrest. The regime continued to provide political and weapons support to Hizballah and continued to allow Iran to rearm the terrorist organization."

"The Syrian government had an important role in the growth of terrorist networks in Syria through the permissive attitude the Assad regime took towards al-Qa’ida’s foreign fighter facilitation efforts during the Iraq conflict. Syrian government awareness and encouragement for many years of violent extremists’ transit through Syria to enter Iraq, for the purpose of fighting Coalition Troops, is well documented. Syria was a key hub for foreign fighters en route to Iraq..."

Obama success story: Syria still using chemical weapons on children

From the Telegraph-UK:

President Bashar al-Assad is still using chemical weapons against civilians, a scientific analysis of samples from multiple gas attacks has shown...

Soil samples from the scene of three recent attacks in the country were collected by trained individuals... and analysed by a chemical warfare expert... Sizeable and unambiguous traces of chlorine and ammonia present at the site of all three attacks.

The use in war of “asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases” - both of which can be produced by chlorine and ammonia - is banned by the Geneva Protocol, of which Syria is a signatory.

The attacks, which in some cases used canisters marked with their chemical contents, were conducted by helicopter - [the toxins came from barrels that were dropped from helicopters]. In the Syrian civil war, only the regime has access to aerial power, making it now certain that the recent chemical attacks could only have been carried out by the regime...

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a British chemical weapons expert involved in the testing, said: “We have unequivocally proved that the regime has used chlorine and ammonia against its own civilians in the last two to three weeks.”...

In the last two weeks alone there have been eight separate chemical attacks... Chemical tests... now confirm that chlorine gas and ammonia have been used in Idlib, and that the toxins came from barrels that were dropped from helicopters....

Several people, including children, died and hundreds were seriously wounded in three [recent] attacks [that happened on April 11, 18 and 21]. Video footage and eye witness testimony show casualties displaying symptoms typical of chlorine gas and ammonia poisoning: sore eyes, irritated skin, difficulty breathing and a bloody foaming from the mouth...

Hence, the title of this post: "Obama success story: Syria still using chemical weapons on children"...

Obama's red lines? Yeah, right........

Benghazi: More evidence of White House cover-up, lies

Last year, the Obama administration claimed that the White House bore no responsibility for the phony Benghazi talking points that emanated from the White House after the September 2012 terrorist attacks. According to the Obama administration, the CIA crafted the phony talking points and subsequently passed on the false information to the White House. Of course, it was obvious back then that the White House was prevaricating and attempting to cover up its own cover-up. It was clear that the Obama administration had devised a host of phony talking points and, in typical fashion, was now trying to pin the blame on someone else.

This following update on Benghazi is just more evidence that the White House was indeed lying and trying to cover up its own cover-up.

From Fox News:

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video...

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.

"The goal of the White House was to do one thing primarily, which was to make the president look good. Blame it on the video and not [the] president's policies," he said.

The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May -- after Republicans refused to move forward with the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director until the so-called "talking points" emails were made public.

The email is also significant because in congressional testimony in early April, former deputy CIA director Michael Morell told lawmakers it was Rice, in her Sunday show appearances, who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morell said the video was not part of the CIA analysis...

The newly released emails also show that on Sept. 27, 2012 a Fox News report -- titled "US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm" -- was circulated at the most senior levels of the administration. This included going to then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough; then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan; Morell; and Rhodes, among others, but the comments were redacted, citing "personal privacy information."

"Personal privacy information", heh....

Luckily, for the Obama administration, the White House's personal privacy is protected - which is more than I can say for everyone else's personal privacy. Heh...

Obama is right, it's "not a myth", the pay gap between male and female employees in the White House is an absolute "embarrassment"

Speaking from the East Room of the White House on Tuesday, President Obama stated: "Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns... And in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong."

The President went on to say that the pay gap between men and women is "not a myth; it’s math. You can look at the paychecks. You can look at the stubs... If [people] tell you that there’s not a pay gap out there, you tell them to look at the data, because there is."

Sadly, we do not need to look at paychecks or stubs to recognize that there is a huge pay gap between male and female employees in the White House. Some diligent individuals have already done the research; they examined the White House records and discovered that the median salary for female employees in the Obama White House in 2013 was 13% less than the median salary for male employees.

Obama is spot-on! "It's not a myth; it’s math!" The pay gap between male and female employees in the Obama White House is real, and, as the President rightfully noted, it's "an embarrassment" and "it is wrong!" Period!

It is also worthwhile to note that a 2008 report revealed that then-Sen. Obama paid his female senate staffers 83 cents for every dollar he paid his male staffers. And that's "not a myth; it’s math!" The pay gap between Obama's male and female senate staffers was "an embarrassment" then, and the pay gap in the Obama White House is "an embarresment" now! It was "wrong" then, and it is "wrong now"! Period!

To paraphrase a plea from President Obama during his speech on Tuesday: "If you care about this issue, then let your senators know where you stand - because female employees in the White House deserve equal pay for equal work!"

Related Post from January 2014:  Obama? Women deserve equal pay, Hmmm... State of the Union address

Related video below, from January 2014 - Obama's hypocritical State of the Union address:

Hillary Clinton distinguishes between Syria & Libya: "There’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities"

Appearing on CBS Face the Nation in March of 2011, Hillary Clinton was asked whether the Obama administration would respond to the Syrian regime opening fire and killing anti-government protesters the same way it responded to the violence in Libya, and whether the administration would take similar action to put an end to the carnage in Syria.

Clinton made a distinction between Syria and Libya, and between Bashar Assad and his father, Hafez Assad, the former President of Syria.

"There is a different leader in Syria now," Clinton said. "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning. But there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, then police actions, which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

Of course the number of people who were killed during the Libyan upheaval is now a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people who've been killed in Syria [over 100,000, and probably a lot more than that. The UN does not keep a tally of the death toll in Syria anymore because it is too large to track].

Moreover, Clinton argued that "there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities [in Libya], than police actions [in Syria]."

But calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing its own cities is precisely what the Syrian regime has been doing for quite some time.

Just one example: The UPI reported on Monday that "Air raids by the Assad regime killed around 30 Syrians as the government continued to drop barrel bombs on civilians"....

Oh, well....

The report also went on to say:

More than 100,000 people have been killed in Syria since the conflict began 3 years ago...

The West may not be making many substantial efforts in Syria, but Russia is sending more weapons to the Assad regime during a time when Russia already has escalated tensions with the international community after the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

"Russia is now doing everything to ensure that Assad wins convincingly," said Alexei Malashenko, a Middle East analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center. "If Russia can show it’s capable of carrying out its own foreign policy, regardless of America’s wishes, it will be a major achievement for Putin."

Hezbollah, which has been fighting alongside the pro-government forces, says Syria's government is no longer at risk of being toppled.

That last sentence was the topic of my previous post: Assad & Nasrallah declare victory in Syria

Here's a video clip from Clinton's 2011 Face the Nation interview:

Assad & Nasrallah declare victory in Syria

The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is no longer in danger of being toppled, the leader of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, Hassan Nasrallah, said in an interview with a Lebanese news media outlet on Monday.

Hebollah militants in Syria have been fighting alongside Assad’s forces.

"In my estimation, the phase of overthrowing the regime... is over," Nasrallah said.

Nasrallah added that Russia, after annexing Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, will continue its “support and protection to Syria.”

Nasrallah went on to say that he believes Bashar Assad will run for reelection in July in this year's Syrian Presidential election and that Assad will nominate himself as a candidate for the election, which no doubt, will be rigged in Assad's favor.

"It's natural that he nominates himself, and I believe that will happen," Nasrallah said.

A Russian news media outlet reported on Monday that Sergei Stepashin - a former Russian prime minister who recently met Bashar Al Assad - said that the Syrian dictator told him that most of the fighting in Syria would be over by the end of the year.

The reassurance from Nasrallah and Assad that the Syrian regime will emerge triumphant and will remain in power is no doubt music to the ears of Obama, who, early on in his Presidency, was an enthusiastic supporter of Bashar Assad.

The US withdrew its ambassador from Syria in 2005 after Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, was assassinated in a Beirut bomb attack perpetrated by Hezbollah and the Syrian regime. Nevertheless, in June of 2009, Obama announced that he was returning the US Ambassador to Syria.

Obama also began to soften the economic sanctions that had long been imposed on Syria.

Enerpub reported in August of 2009:

In February, the Obama Administration waived Syria Accountability Act provisions to approve the export of aircraft parts and repair services to Syria for civil aviation... Additionally, the return of a U.S. Ambassador to Damascus was announced on June 24th.

In July, according to Agence France Presse, US envoy George Mitchell told Assad he would work to speed up the process of obtaining exemptions to anti-Syrian sanctions. At the end of July, the United States announced a decision to ease sanctions on spare aircraft parts, information-technology products and telecommunications equipment.

But, in 2011, when the Syrian regime began shooting upon anti-government protesters, Obama was in a bind.

Despite the killing of civilians, Assad was initially labeled a "reformer" by then-Secretary of State, Hillaty Clinton. However, as the situation in Syria spiraled out of control, and more and more people were being killed, a reluctant Obama was left with little choice but to denounce his good buddy, the "reformer", and to call on him to step down from office.

Nevertheless, Obama stayed out of the fray and stood on the sidelines as thousands upon thousands of Syrians were being killed. But luckily for Obama, after months and months of him standing on the sidelines, al-Qaeda militants began infiltrating the ranks of the Syrian rebels, and Obama was able to avoid further criticism over his decision to remain inactive in Syria and turn a blind eye toward his good buddy's atrocities.

The President continues to feign phony condemnation of Assad while calling on his pal to step down from office, but of course, inside his heart, Obama couldn't be any happier with Assad and Nasrallah's latest declaration of victory, because ultimately a good buddy like Assad is hard to come by........

Reset Button: Obama resets US, Russian Relations to Cold War era

President Obama promised he would reset US, Russian relations, and indeed the relationship has been successfully reset, and restored, to an earlier era from the 20th Century when the Cold War was at its peak - which proves once again that Obama is a man of his word.

Ah, yes, the "Cold War-style war of words" between the Obama administration and the Kremlin.

Heh......

From the AFP:

Ukraine faced a fresh secessionist crisis on Monday as pro-Kremlin militants occupying the Donetsk government seat proclaimed independence from Kiev and vowed to hold a referendum on joining Russia.

The declaration and accompanying appeal for Russian military assistance put the culturally splintered nation of 46 million in danger of disintegration and intensified pressure on Western powers to act.

The White House responded by calling on the Kremlin to stop trying to "destabilise Ukraine"...

But Moscow brushed off the accusations and called the latest unrest a sign of Kiev's Western-backed leaders' ineptitude and illegitimacy.

The Cold War-style war of words over the ex-Soviet nation's future comes with the added urgency of the Ukrainian border being watched by Russian soldiers who had already annexed Crimea in response to last month's ouster in Kiev of a Moscow-backed regime.

Several heavily Russified eastern regions have recently been hit by calls for referendums on joining Russia when Ukraine holds snap presidential polls on May 25.

The political pressure on Kiev's embattled leaders reached boiling point on Sunday when thousands of activists chanting "Russia!" seized administration buildings in Kharkiv and Donetsk as well as the security service headquarters in the eastern region of Lugansk.

Obama: "The Debate over repealing" Obamcare "is over!" Really?! Heh, heh, heh

President Obama told an audience of White House staff members and supporters on Tuesday that, "The debate over repealing this law [Obamacare] is over!"

However, it should be noted that the right to debate is a basic and fundamental right that can not be squashed by a US President, even an all-powerful President the likes of Obama - particularly when the topic of debate is a law that can detrimentally effect the health of millions of Americans, their livelihood and their bank accounts.

Hence, contrary to the President's assertion, the Obamacare debate is far from over.

More in the video below:

Yellen: Weak Job market will require lots of help for "some time"

Speaking at the National Interagency Community Reinvestment Conference in Chicago on Monday, Fed Chairman Janet Yellen asserted that the abysmal US job market will likely remain in an egregious state for some time, hence, she said the Federal Reserve's current policies of massive bond-buying and ultra-low interest rates is "still needed, and will be for some time."

The following are excerpts from Yellen's address:

The recovery still feels like a recession to many Americans, and it also looks that way in some economic statistics... In some ways, the job market is tougher now than in any recession. The numbers of people who have been trying to find work for more than six months or more than a year are much higher today than they ever were since records began decades ago...

More than seven million people... are working part time but want a full-time job. As a share of the workforce, that number is very high historically... There are real people behind the statistics, struggling to get by and eager for the opportunity to build better lives...

One reason why I believe it is appropriate for the Federal Reserve to continue to provide substantial help to the labor market... is because of the evidence I see that there remains considerable slack in the economy and the labor market... Slack means that there are significantly more people willing and capable of filling a job than there are jobs for them to fill.

During a period of little or no slack, there still may be vacant jobs and people who want to work, but a large share of those willing to work lack the skills or are otherwise not well suited for the jobs that are available. If unemployment were mostly structural [and not due to a considerable slack in the economy and the labor market], if workers were unable to perform the jobs available, then the Federal Reserve’s efforts to create jobs would not be very effective.

Now let me explain why I believe there is still considerable slack in the labor market, why I think there is room for continued help from the Fed for workers... One form of evidence for slack is found in other labor market data, beyond the unemployment rate or payrolls... For example, the seven million people who are working part time but would like a full-time job..., the existence of such a large pool of “partly unemployed” workers, is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate. Statistics on job turnover also point to considerable slack in the labor market...

Firms... have been reluctant to increase the pace of hiring. Likewise, the number of people who voluntarily quit their jobs is noticeably below levels before the recession; that is an indicator that people are reluctant to risk leaving their jobs because they worry that it will be hard to find another. It is also a sign that firms may not be recruiting very aggressively to hire workers away from their competitors.

A second form of evidence for slack is that the decline in unemployment has not helped raise wages for workers as in past recoveries. Workers in a slack market have little leverage to demand raises. Labor compensation has increased an average of only a little more than 2 percent per year since the recession, which is very low by historical standards.... [Editor's Note: The egregious economy under Obama has resulted in a low increase in wages, hence Obama has decided to mandate an increase in the minimum wage to make up for his own ineptitude.]

Labor market slack has also surely been a factor in holding down compensation. The low rate of wage growth is, to me, another sign that the Fed’s job is not yet done.

A third form of evidence related to slack concerns the characteristics of the extraordinarily large share of the unemployed who have been out of work for six months or more. These workers find it exceptionally hard to find steady, regular work...

The concern is that the long-term unemployed may remain on the sidelines, ultimately dropping out of the workforce. But the data suggest that the long-term unemployed look basically the same as other unemployed people in terms of their occupations, educational attainment, and other characteristics. And, although they find jobs with lower frequency than the short-term jobless do, the rate at which job seekers are finding jobs has only marginally improved for both groups. That is, we have not yet seen clear indications that the short-term unemployed are finding it increasingly easier to find work relative to the long-term unemployed...

A final piece of evidence of slack in the labor market has been the behavior of the participation rate – the proportion of working-age adults that hold or are seeking jobs. Participation falls in a slack job market when people who want a job give up trying to find one... [The participation rate] now stands at 63 percent, the same level as in 1978 [when Jimmy Carter was President], when a much smaller share of women were in the workforce. Lower participation could mean that the 6.7 percent unemployment rate is overstating the progress in the labor market. ["Could mean?!" Heh....]

Based on the evidence, my own view is that a significant amount of the decline in participation during the recovery is due to slack, another sign that help from the Fed can still be effective.

Since late 2008, the Fed has taken extraordinary steps to revive the economy... There is little doubt that without these actions, the recession and slow recovery would have been far worse...

For the many reasons I have noted today, I think this extraordinary commitment is still needed and will be for some time, and I believe that view is widely shared by my fellow policymakers at the Fed

Afghan violence rages on

NATO troops will finalize their pullout from Afghanistan by the end of this year in accordance with President Obama's so-called "exit strategy", but that doesn't mean there is any end in sight for the widespread violence, wanton destruction and absolute mayhem that is wreaking havoc upon the country.

Here's a small sampling of the latest violence via the AP:

The Taliban launched a brazen assault in the Afghan capital on Tuesday, with a suicide bomber detonating his vehicle outside an election office on the edge of Kabul while two other gunmen stormed into the building, killing four people and trapping dozens of employees inside.

Insurgents also carried out a number of attacks elsewhere across the country killing at least 10 people, many of them members of the country's security forces, including a woman police official in southern Helmand province.

In Kabul, a candidate for a seat on a provincial council was among those killed when insurgents stormed the election office. Two election workers and a policeman were also among the dead...

The Taliban claimed responsibility in a statement to media...

Also Tuesday, insurgents carried out a number of attacks across the country.

A suicide bomber blew himself up in northern Kunduz province. while in northeastern Kunar province three insurgents stormed the state-owned New Kabul Bank. In eastern Khost province, dozens of insurgents attacked a police outpost on the border with Pakistan.

In southern Helmand province, where the Taliban control vast areas, a woman police official was shot and killed in her home.

Five people were killed and another 20 were wounded in northern Kunduz province when a suicide bomber blew himself up during a traditional buzkashi match __ which features a headless goat, said provincial police chief Gen. Mustafa Mohsini...

In the government-owned New Kabul Bank in Asadabad, the capital of northeastern Kunar province, two policemen were killed and three others wounded in an attack carried out by three insurgents with suicide vests...

In eastern Khost province, dozens of insurgents armed with rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns laid siege to a border outpost. Provincial Police Chief Faizullah Ghyrat said two police border guards were killed...

In other developments, Afghan police said they detained eight senior employees of a private security company that provided guards to the Kabul hotel attacked by the Taliban last week.

The interior ministry said in a statement that the company employed by the Serena Hotel was negligent, which enabled the four attackers to hide small handguns in their shoes and avoid detection to enter the premises on Thursday evening.

The gunmen opened fire inside the hotel restaurant, killing nine people, including two children and four foreigners...

Obama's low approval ratings could cost Dems in midterm elections, poll shows

President Obama's low job-approval rating could cost the Democratic Party in November's midterm elections, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal noted on Wednesday citing a new poll conducted jointly by the two news media outlets that shows 54% of Americans disapprove of the President's job performance while only 41% approve of his job performance, his worst job approval rating in the survey’s history.

Of equal significance, or perhaps greater significance, to the midterm elections, the poll shows that 42% of Americans are less likely to vote for a candidate who is endorsed by President Obama, while only 22% are more likely to vote for a candidate who is endorsed by Obama. Additionally, 48% of Americans say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who is a solid supporter of the Obama administration, while only 26% say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who is a solid supporter of the Obama administration.

33% of Americans say their "vote for Congress this November" will "be a vote to send a signal of opposition to President Obama", while 24% say their vote "will be a vote to send a signal of support for President Obama." 41 percent say their vote will not be "a signal either way about Obama."

56% of Americans "disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy", while only 41% approve.

53% of Americans "disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling foreign policy", while only 41% approve.

42% of Americans strongly believe the new health care law [Obamacare] was a bad idea, while only 26% strongly believe it was a good idea.

Leaving out the word "strongly", 49% of Americans believe the new health care law was a bad idea, while only only 35% believe it was a good idea.

47% of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports repealing the health care reform law, while only 32% say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports the repeal of Obamacare.

57% of Americans think the United States is currently in an economic recession, while only 41% think the US is currently not in an economic recession.

30% of Americans have very negative feelings toward Obama, 21% of Americans have very positive feelings toward him.

67% of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports cutting federal spending, 14% are less lkely to vote for such a candidate.

44% of Americans prefer a Congress controlled by Republicans, 43% prefer a Congress controlled by Democrats.

42% of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who "places a major emphasis on more conservative social and religious values", while only 29% say they are less likely to vote for such a candidate.

41% of Americans say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports legalizing the purchase of small quantities of marijuana by adults for their personal use, 31% are more likely to vote for such a candidate.

72% of Americans think of Russia as more of an adversary than an ally, 19% of Americans think of Russia as more of an ally.

It is worthy to note that, although the poll shows significant opposition to the policies, ideals and ideologies of President Obama and his Democratic minions, 43% of the poll respondents said that they think of themselves as Democrats - whether that entails being a strong Democrat, a not very strong Democrat, or an Independent/lean Democrat - while 37% of the respondents said they think of themselves as Republicans, whether that entails being a strong Republican, a not very strong Republican, or an Independent/lean Republican. That's a 6% differential. The remaining 20% of the poll respondents considered themselves either strictly independents, none of the above, or they weren't sure what they were.

Which means that the poll respondents, of whom a majority were Democrats, expressed significant opposition to President Obama's extreme left-wing agenda.

You don't hear President Obama talking about Libya anymore

You don't hear President Obama talking about Libya anymore.

Obama no longer gloats about the important role he played in the Libyan uprising. That's because the terrorist attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi and the ongoing violence and perpetual chaos in the country is really nothing to gloat about. Hence, Obama has chosen to omit Libya from his talking points and to remove the five-letter obscenity from his lexicon.

But aside from the unremitting violence and chaos, the Libyan uprising also succeeded in creating a serious, ongoing problem of weapons trafficking from Libya, which, according to UN officials, "is fueling conflict and insecurity - including terrorism - on several continents."

No, you don't hear Obama talking about Libya anymore.

Reuters reported on Monday:

U.N. experts say Libya has become a primary source of illicit weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles, which have been trafficked to at least 14 countries and are fueling conflicts on several continents...

The [UN] panel furthermore noted that investigations relating to transfers to 14 countries reflected a highly diversified range of trafficking dynamics; and that trafficking from Libya was fueling conflict and insecurity - including terrorism - on several continents.

No, you don't hear Obama talking about Libya anymore; it's no longer part of his resume.

Jolly sinks Sink in Obamcare referendum election

In what was seen as an early test of how President Obama's health care overhaul will play in November's midterm elections, Republican David Jolly, who seeks to repeal Obamacare, defeated Democrat Alex Sink on Tuesday to capture the special election in Florida’s 13th Congressional District.

The Washington Post noted earlier in the day: "Republicans say that if their first-time candidate defeats a seasoned veteran, it will demonstrate just how toxic the health-care law will be for Democrats this fall."

Apparently, Obamacare's toxicity is so strong that it enabled the first-time candidate to sink the seasoned Democrat veteran, Alex Sink - which, is jolly good news for the majority of Americans who are opposed to Obamcare.

Washington Post: Washington not focused on "the bankruptcy of Obama administration policy"

"Washington's seemingly inability to focus on more than one international crisis at a time has been a boon to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It also has diverted attention from the bankruptcy of Obama administration policy," the Washington Post asserted in an editorial on Monday.

The problem is, the Post expects everyone else to focus on Obama's multiple foreign policy failures, when Obama can't even handle one crisis at a time, as the Post concedes implicitly later on in its editorial.

And while the current and former White House Press Secretaries - Jay Carney and Robert Gibbs - have insisted on a number of occasions that President Obama is a multitasker who is able walk and chew gum at the same, it is quite evident that, even when Obama's not chewing gum, he is still unable to walk, and that he can't even handle one task at a time.

In truth, Washington might be able to focus on Obama's failed policies if there weren't so many of them, but the endless stream of Obama failures keep popping up in rapid succession one after another, making it virtually impossible to focus on each and every failure, and his multitude of bankrupt policies.

Oh, well...

From the Washington Post:

Washington's seemingly inability to focus on more than one international crisis at a time has been a boon to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It also has diverted attention from the bankruptcy of Obama administration policy.

As Russia invaded Ukraine, the Assad regime proceeded unmolested and almost unnoticed with a merciless offensive of “barrel-bombing,” in which helicopters drop explosive containers filled with nails and other deadly shrapnel on apartment buildings, schools and hospitals. The latest target is the town of Yabroud, near the Lebanese border. In other areas, the regime continued to wage a war of starvation, besieging civilians in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution approved more than two weeks ago.

Mr. Assad is missing deadlines on the promised destruction of his chemical weapons arsenal. Two deadlines for handing over chemical stocks have passed, and international inspectors say the regime will likely violate a March 15 requirement for destroying 12 production facilities. A bogus election is being prepared to extend Mr. Assad’s presidential term for another seven years. That follows the regime’s refusal to discuss a plan for a transitional government at a peace conference in Geneva last month, which caused the talks to collapse.

The breakdown in Geneva stripped the Obama administration of the fig leaf it had used to cover its failure to develop a workable policy for Syria. For nine months, Secretary of State John F. Kerry had claimed that, in concert with Russia, the United States would use the Geneva process to end Mr. Assad’s rule. As that fantasy unraveled, President Obama hinted at new strategies: “We are continuing to explore every possible avenue to solve this problem,” the president said Feb. 11.

If there has been a change in U.S. policy since then, it hasn’t been detectable.

As you can see for yourselves, the Post is clearly suggesting that Obama's handling of the Syrian crisis was inept long before he was confronted with a new crisis in Europe.

Yep, Obama is clearly incapable of walking, even when he's not chewing gum.

[Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)], the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both expressed bewilderment at a hearing last week over the administration’s seeming inactivity.

Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns stated bluntly that Syria now presents “enormous challenges” to U.S. interests that “require a steady, comprehensive American strategy.”

Yet when senators asked about the U.S. response, Mr. Burns could offer only vague phrases about “ways to support the moderate opposition” and coordination with other rebel supporters. As Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) noted, “We have been hearing this for years now, and since we first began hearing it, I would guess a hundred thousand people have died.”

The Obama administration unquestionably must answer the Russian offensive in Crimea. But that does not lessen the critical threat to U.S. interests in Syria or excuse the president’s continuing passivity. It’s time for decisive steps to achieve the U.S. objectives of checking al-Qaeda and reversing the regime’s military momentum.

Let's face it, Obama can't even handle one task at a time, and yet, the Washington Post, which seems to concede this point earlier in its editorial [implicitly], expects the President to walk and chew gum at the same time and handle two tasks simultaneously?! Are you kidding me?!

Senate Dems to pull all-nighter talking hot air

Twenty-six Democratic Senators will use the senate floor on Monday to conduct an all-night marathon talking hot air.

From 6:30 p.m on Monday until 9 a.m on Tuesday, the group, which calls itself the “climate caucus”, will speak not-stop about Global Warming and Climate change.

The "talkathon" is not technically considered a filibuster since no actual legislation is up for debate, but the hot air coalition hopes to draw media attention to its cause by talking hot air for hours on end.

Grueling, hectic 5 day schedule for Obama!

The US Presidency is not an easy job; just ask President Obama, who began a grueling five day schedule on Friday when he and his family flew off to Florida to spend the weekend at the Ocean Reef Club, a private membership club nestled in 2,500 secluded, tropical acres on the northern tip of Key Largo.

"For avid golfers like Obama, the property boasts two championship 18-hole golf courses," the AP noted. "The club also has a swimming lagoon, tennis courts, a spa and fitness center, a private airport and more than a dozen restaurants among its varied offerings."

However, the President's hectic schedule does not end there. Obama still has a couple of grueling days ahead of him as he welcomes college sports teams to the White House on Monday and flies off to New York on Tuesday for Democratic fundraisers.

Yep, the Presidency is definitely not an easy job - particularly for someone the likes of Obama who takes his job with the utmost of seriousness.

The President wrapped up his weekend getaway at "the Ocean Reef resort Sunday with a second round of golf in as many days, and headed back to Washington," the Washington Post reported.

"Obama spent the weekend with first lady Michelle Obama, daughters Malia and Sasha, and an assortment of friends, including former NFL star Ahmad Rashad and former NBA star Alonzo Mourning, both of whom joined the president on the links," the Post noted.

"The first family boarded the Marine One helicopter... and enjoyed a scenic ride to Homestead Air Reserve Base, where they boarded Air Force One for the trip back to Washington. This week, Obama will welcome college sports teams to the White House on Monday and travel to New York for Democratic fundraisers on Tuesday, officials said."

Yep, that's five successive days of grueling, arduous work for Obama.

But ultimately the Presidency is an exhausting and demanding job. And Obama, it seems, is more than willing to take the burden upon himself - for the good of the country.

Only after the President is finished tending to these very serious matters will he take a breather and tend to more light-hearted matters - like his meeting at the White House on Wednesday with the Ukrainian Prime Minister.

Yep, business before pleasure - that's what the Presidency is all about...........

Robert Gates: Obama defense cuts sending signal that US is not interested in protecting its Global interests

Appearing today on Fox News Sunday, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked whether he would have resigned as Defense Secretary - if he were still in office - rather than preside over the current defense budget cuts that President Obama is implementing?

Mr. Gates was also asked whether the huge cuts in defense spending "do damage to the nation's security?"

"Well, I don't know the answer to the first question [whether he would have resigned as Defense Secretary]. (But, as far as the second question is concerned), I think that cutting the defense budget in significant ways right now is a serious mistake,"said Gates. "You know, when we've cut the budget before, at the end of the Cold War, at the end of Vietnam, and at other times, it's been because we thought the world was going to be a safer place - at least we thought so temporarily at the time."

"No one can make that case right now. You look at the situation in Ukraine, and our relationships with Russia, you look a the tensions between China and Japan and in the South China Sea. You look at Iran and North Korea. These guys are operating on the 20th Century model of nation states: boundaries matter, strategic interests matter, zero-sum game, I win, you lose. This is the way these countries look at the world, it's different than the way the West Europeans and we look at it."

"And frankly, the pace at which both the Europeans and the US is cutting their defenses, regardless of what the facts on the ground, in terms of the number of ships and the number of planes, it certainly sends a signal that we are not interested in protecting our Global interests," said Gates - who, while serving as Defense Secretary, acquiesced, and bowed to President Obama's budget cut demands, despite the inherent dangers involved in such capitulation - although, it also true that cuts in defense spending have increased considerably since Gates left office.

Nevertheless, according to the former Defense Secretary, the President is sending a signal that the US is not interested in protecting its Global interests.

Which ultimately means Obama is showing competence in at least one area: his ability to send signals.........

Obama: No regime change for Iran's regime changing regime!

Despite the fact that Iran is using terrorism as a vehicle to implement regime change in other countries - the Obama administration has reassured the Iranian regime that it does not support regime change in Iran - thereby enabling, and empowering, the Iranian regime to facilitate regime change in other countries, with impunity, via the regime's trusty and dependable tool, terrorism.

A real head-scratcher - compliments of the Obama administration. And par for the course......

Over the last several years, and in recent weeks, Bahrain has witnessed an endless stream of bomb explosions and attacks that have wrought death, injury and destruction upon its citizenry.

The pathetic UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, commenting on a recent terrorist attack in Bahrain, said that there is no justification for such acts of violence.

A vacuous, bold statement from the UN Secretary-General! Heh...

Shia cleric Sheikh Abdullah al-Muqabi, sociologist at the Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments in Bahrain, said that Iran and Hezbollah have been "supporting the criminal activity and terrorist attacks in Bahrain."

According to a Dubai police chief, the perpetrator of a bombing attack this week in Bahrain was a frequent visitor to Lebanon and received training on the use explosives from Hezbollah.

The chairwoman of the Bahraini parliamentary foreign affairs, defense and national security committee asserted that there are "Iranian fingerprints" and "Hezbollah's hand" in these attacks.

"Many suspects have been convicted of being involved or associated with Iran or Hezbollah," she said.

Bahrain's Foreign Minister, Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, said that, "Iran has sought to bring explosives into Bahrain and has trained terrorists to use them. As a result, Bahrain has entered a dangerous stage..."

The Bahrani Foreign Minister noted Iran's "active involvement in: indirect training of violent actors in Bahrain through proxy groups based outside Bahrain; emergence of insurgent groups directly linked to the Al Quds Force, a special unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard; arrests across the GCC [Arab Gulf states] of individuals being directed by Iranian operatives; and seizures of large amounts of deadly weaponry. These are a few recent examples..."

Mr. Khalifa called for international measures to be taken against Iran in the face of "this blatant incitement and interference in Bahrain's affairs as well as support of terrorism".

In February of 2013, I noted:

Bahrain's National Security Agency announced the discovery of an Iranian backed "terrorist cell" in Bahrain that was planning to attack highly-sensitive civil and military sites and to target public figures. Bahraini Security Chief, Tareq al-Hassan, said the terrorist cell "brought in arms and explosives" and was prepared "to launch operations at a moment decided by their command in Iran."

It is also worthy to note that the Israeli Navy on Wednesday intercepted an Iranian shipment of arms that was being delivered to Hamas. The shipment included rockets capable of carrying warheads with over 300 pounds of explosives.

But ultimately, while Iran seeks both regime change and absolute destruction for its neighbors - Obama does not support regime change in Iran because..., well, because he is Obama........

Hence, Mr. Obama refused to support the protesters in Iran during the mass demonstrations that took place in the country in 2009; and he currently refuses to support countless Iranians who loathe, and oppose, the Mullocracy.

The reason for this phenomenon is simple; it's because..., well..., it's because he's Obama........

Simple enough?

I concluded my February, 2013 post with the following tongue-in-cheek assessment:

The truth of the matter is, Iran is conducting these terrorist operations for peaceful purposes only, just as they are developing their nuclear program solely, and exclusively, for peaceful purposes. Hence, it would behoove the President to continue to adhere to his policy of refraining from meddling in Iran's peaceful pursuits.

President Obama has continuously reassured the Iranian government that he is not seeking, and will not seek, regime change in Iran. And this is indeed the correct path to take, for only a non-meddling policy on Obama's part, that ensures there will be no regime change in Iran, will afford the Iranian government the opportunity to further engage in their peaceful activities, [including their peaceful regime change activities].

Lawmakers reject Obama logic: Defending despicable cop-killer doesn't make one qualified to lead Justice Department’s civil rights division

If President Obama had a son, he would not look like Daniel Faulkner, the Philadelphia police officer who was brutally murdered in 1981 by Mumia Abu-Jamal. Hence, not surprisingly,the President expressed shock on Wednesday when Republican and Democratic lawmakers were unable to stomach his nominee to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division - a fellow by the name of Debo Adegbile - who just happened [by mere coincidence, of course] to serve as defense attorney for Abu-Jamal.

President Obama's choice for the civil rights division post was blocked in congress by a 52-47 vote, as seven Democratic lawmakers had the good conscience to join their Republican counterparts in rejecting Obama's nominee.

The Washington Examiner noted that, "Senate Democrats [previously] killed the filibuster for nominations because they wanted to be able to confirm the president's choices for top administration positions even if Republicans were united in opposition. From now on, Democrats ruled, nominations would be confirmed by a simple majority vote. With 55 Democrats in the Senate, and as few as 51 required for confirmation, the change virtually guaranteed success for the president's nominees. But even a rule change was not enough to save the nomination" of the notorious cop-killer's defense attorney.

President Obama, no doubt, believes that defending the notorious, heinous and brutal cop-killer is precisely what makes Mr. Adegbile highly qualified to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division, but, ultimately both Republicans and Democrats were unable to stomach the President's choice and his logic.

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday recounted the details of Mr. Faulkner's brutal murder.

The policeman was "conducting a routine traffic stop when Wesley Cook — also known as Mumia Abu-Jamal — shot him in the back," McConell said. "[Abu-Jamal} then stood over Officer Faulkner and shot him several more times in the chest.

"As Officer Faulkner lay dying in the street, defenseless, Abu-Jamal shot him in the face, killing him. At the hospital, Abu-Jamal bragged that he had shot Officer Faulkner and expressed his hope that he would die."

However, President Obama, whose son - if the President were to have a son - would not look like Daniel Faulkner, called the vote a "travesty", and asserted that, "Those who voted against [Adegbile's] nomination, denied the American people an outstanding public servant.”

However, in a letter that was read on the senate floor shortly before the vote, Mauren Faulkner, the widow of the slain police officer, wrote that, "Today, as my husband lies 33 years in his grave..., old wounds have once again been ripped open, and additional insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this country by President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile."

According to the Washington Examiner, "Vice President Joe Biden arrived in the Senate chamber to break a possible tie -- a clear indication that the White House knew the nomination was in trouble. But there was no tie. Seven Democrats voted "no," joined by 44 Republicans... The vote was a clear defeat for President Obama, who himself practiced civil rights law before taking up politics."

Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat from the state of Pennsylvania - where the brutal murder occurred - issued a statement on Friday saying:

"It is important that we ensure that Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country have full confidence in their public representatives - both elected and appointed. The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well as the City of Philadelphia. After carefully considering this nomination and having met with both Mr. Adegbile as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, I will not vote to confirm the nominee."

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey issued a statement after the vote saying:

“Today is a good day for Pennsylvania, for America, and for those who believe in justice... I appreciate the bipartisan support of my [Democratic] colleagues... and from Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams in opposing the confirmation of Mr. Adegbile.

“Today the Senate affirmed that our criminal justice system must never be abused to propagate a dishonest, radical agenda. The American people, especially law enforcement and Maureen Faulkner, deserve better.”

Indeed. For contrary to the President's twisted ideology - defending a despicable cop-killer does not make one qualified to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division; if anything, it makes him totally unqualified and unfit for the job.

Putin is on the right side of history, Obama isn't fooling Everybody

Lambasting Vladimir Putin's recent incursion into Ukraine, President Obama made the claim that the Russian President is "on the wrong side of history." Mr. Obama based his claim on a deceptive and fictitious assertion that he has made time and time again, namely that "the Cold War is over."

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, the Deceiver-in-Chief mocked then-Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, for making a big fuss about Russia and for criticizing Obama's policies on Russia.

Romney is "stuck in a Cold War time warp," the Deceiver-in-Chief asserted while addressing the Democratic National Convention in September of 2012.

But the fact of the matter is, while the Cold War, in theory, may have ended - in practice, the Cold War continues till this very day, as evidenced by the positions Russia has taken time and time again - in the UN and outside of the UN - on virtually every issue that has arisen in the international arena - positions that deliberately run counter to the US positions.

Hence, Russia is merely embracing the policies and strategies that it has embraced until now, and Putin is simply aligning himself with his country's past and recent history; Putin is being consistent; he is clearly on the right side of history - both his country's past and recent history.

On the flip side, President Obama, with his illusionary and deceptive talking points about the Cold War and about terrorism, is on the wrong side of both past and recent history. For indeed, the Cold War is still in full force.

Some might call it naivety on Obama's part, I call it deliberate deception.

Which leads to me to a second point:

On Tuesday, President Obama said, with regards to the situation in Ukraine, that, "President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody."

Problem is, Putin doesn't need to fool anybody; he has been consistent, and his actions are consistent with Russia's past and recent history; Putin is on the right side of history.

Obama, on the other hand, is on the wrong side of past, and recent, history on just about every issue. And yet, he continues to fool a great many into believing his phony, illusionary talking points. However, unlike Putin, Obama desperately needs to throw the wool over people's eyes, otherwise he will no longer be the Pied Piper and his Presidential acting career will be over.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly told President Obama on Monday that she was not sure whether the Russian President was 'in touch with reality'. Putin is “in another world,” she said. But the fact of the matter is, Putin is clearly in touch with reality. Sadly, however, the Obama enthusiasts - who've been misled by the Pied Piper-in-Chief into believing that we are living in a new utopian era - have indeed lost touch with reality. Very sad, indeed.

And while Obama certainly deserves credit for his Pied Piper feats, it is nonetheless important to note what Abraham Lincoln once said, namely, that, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Obama may be a cool cat, but even a cool cat can not "fool all of the people all of the time."

45-state study: Obamacare offers less choice, higher prices, breaking another promise

From the Washington Examiner:

A new and comprehensive comparison of health insurance options offered by Obamacare versus private websites finds that President Obama's program offers less choice and higher prices than promised by the White House and leading Democrats.

Adding to the list of broken health care promises, the study from the National Center for Public Policy Research found that there were more and cheaper options available on websites outside the health insurance exchange in 2013 than on healthcare.gov and state Obamacare exchanges.

The report, "Obamacare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Prices,” looked at options available for a 27-year-old single person and a 57-year-old couple in metropolitan areas across 45 states.

The report found that a 27-year-old male had about 10 more policies to choose from on eHealthinsurance.com and finder.healthcare versus the exchange. The older couple had about nine more policy choices.

Ditto for the cost findings, with the 27-year-old male having access to 32 policies that cost less than the cheapest Obamacare offering, and the 57-year-old couple access to 29 cheaper policies.

"In general, consumers had substantially more policies to choose from on private websites such as eHealthinsurance.com and Finder.healthcare than they presently have on the exchanges," said the study.

"Obamacare supporters, including the president himself and Nancy Pelosi, claimed the exchanges would yield more choice and lower prices," said the study's author, David Hogberg. "This study shows those claims do not stand up.”