Federal Student Loan Debt increased over a half trillion dollars since Obama took office in '09, a 517% increase

From CNS News:

Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the cumulative outstanding balance on federal direct student loans has jumped 517.4 percent.

The balance owed as of the end of May was $739,641,000,000.00. That is an increase of $619,838,000,000.00 from the balance that was owed as of the end of January 2009, when it was $119,803,000,000.00, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Earlier this month, Obama announced new executive actions to allow five million student-loan borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10% of their income...

During President George W. Bush’s time [eight years] in office, the amount of outstanding loans increased from $67,979,000,000.00 in January of 2001 to $119,803,000,000 in January of 2009, an increase of 76.2%. This means that under President Obama - [in the five years plus that Obama has been in office] - the amount of federal direct student loans increased 579% more than under [eight years of] President Bush

Obama administration released al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq

The current chaos in Iraq can be attributed to President Obama's inaction and to his actions.

As I noted last week, President Obama refused to retain a residual force of US troops in Iraq in 2011 when the country was mostly calm and peaceful, after the US military had routed Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed insurgents. The end result of the President's decision, and his inaction, was the emergence of the insurgency that is currently strangling the country.

However, it is President Obama's actions that have actually created the current insurgency in Iraq, as Front Page Magazine aptly notes.

Front Page starts off by elaborating on the point I had made last week:

On October 22nd, 2007, Osama bin Laden admitted in an audio tape, entitled “Message to the people of Iraq,” that al Qaeda was losing the war in Iraq because it had made mistakes and no longer had the allegiance of Sunni insurgents who had switched sides. When Barack Obama became president on January 20, 2009, the war in Iraq was essentially won. The al Qaeda-backed insurgency was reduced to smoldering embers. George W. Bush’s surge had succeeded.

Front Page then goes on to say:

Safely behind bars at the time was Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, an al Qaeda-linked point man who was imprisoned at Camp Bucca in Iraq, after being captured by U.S. forces in 2005. According to a Pentagon assessment at the time, al Baghdadi “would kidnap individuals or entire families, accuse them, pronounce sentence and then publicly execute them.”

However, the Obama administration decided to shut down the Bucca prison camp and hand over its prisoners to the Iraqi government, including Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, in 2009. The Iraqi government later released him. Al Baghadi boasted to the U.S. soldiers who had held him prisoner, “I’ll see you in New York.”

The release of al Baghadi and other jihadist insurgents from the Bucca prison, coupled with President Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 rather than follow the military’s advice to leave a residual force behind, turned the smoldering embers of the once defeated al Qaeda-backed insurgency into a raging out-of-control conflagration.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi has re-emerged to become the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)... ISIS in recent days has taken control of large portions of northern and western Iraq including Iraq’s second largest city Mosul. ISIS freed at least 1,000 militants held in prisons in Mosul, adding more jihadists to its swelling ranks. It has looted hundreds of millions of dollars from northern Iraqi banks and taken sophisticated military equipment left behind by fleeing Iraqi soldiers...

That's right, Obama's actions, namely his decision to hand over al Baghdadi and his fellow prisoners to the Iraqi government - which subsequently freed the thugs - in essence, created the current insurgency in Iraq.

But Obama apparently has a penchant for transferring terrorist detainees to other governments, despite the inherent danger entailed in such handovers. He also has a penchant for freeing terrorist detainees, especially Gitmo detainees.

Earlier this year, the Afghan government released 65 Taliban fighters from a former U.S. prison that had been transferred over by the Obama administration to Afghan control. The release of the fighters came despite the objections of US military personnel who said that the terrorist detainees were "directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel", and that the terrorists would likely return to the battlefield to kill even more NATO and Afghan troops.

And, last month, the Obama administration freed five senior Taliban commanders from Gitmo in exchange for US army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. I noted at the time as follows:

The President has sought all avenues, pretexts and excuses to free all detainees currently held in Gitmo, so that he could fulfill his pledge to close down the facility... President Obama's zeal to shut down Gitmo is well-known. Hence, it is no surprise that the Obama administration... released 5 "high-ranking", senior terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for the release of US marine Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl..

A senior administration official told CNN, "The transfer of these individuals is not a concession -- it is fully in line with the President's goal of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."

The senior administration official - perhaps unwittingly - revealed the truth, namely that the release of the five terrorists from Gitmo was not a concession on Obama's part. Quite the contrary, Obama has desperately sought any pretext to free any and all Gitmo detainees so that he could eventually close down the facility and boast that his campaign pledge to shut down the facility was not an empty promise. Bergdahl's release allowed the President to free 5 more Gitmo detainees and avoid scrutiny. Hence, there was no concession on the President's part; quite the contrary, releasing the five Gitmo detainees, pretext and all, was a wish, and a dream, come true for Obama...

Sadly, many detainees who've been released from Gitmo in the past have rejoined their terrorist comrades and have gone on to kill even more US and NATO troops.

Many Gitmo detainees have been repatriated to other countries where they've been placed either in a prison or a rehab facility for a brief period of time before being released to the wild to inflict more human casualties...

Likewise, the Obama administration handed over Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and his fellow prisoners, to the Iraqis who subsequently released them into the wild, where they are now wreaking destruction upon the entire country.

Boehner: Obama taking a nap while Insurgents take over Iraq and march to Baghdad

"They're 100 miles from Baghdad, and what's the president doing? Taking a nap."
House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday commenting on President Obama's Idleness as al-Qaeda-inspired insurgents continue to take over major cities in Iraq while vowing to march on to the capital, Baghdad.

ABC News reported on Thursday:

As al Qaeda-linked terrorists wreak havoc across Iraq, House Speaker John Boehner unloaded on President Obama for ignoring the escalating crisis there, contending that the president has been “taking a nap” while the situation rapidly deteriorates.

“It's not like we haven't seen over the last five or six months these terrorists moving in, taking control of Western Iraq. Now they've taken control of Mosul. They're 100 miles from Baghdad,” Boehner, R-Ohio, fumed. “And what's the president doing? Taking a nap!”

Earlier this year, on Jan. 9, Boehner publicly urged Obama to “maintain a long-term commitment to a successful outcome” in Iraq, and called on the president to “get engaged.”...

Criticizing President Obama for negotiating an unprecedented prisoner exchange of five ranking Taliban for POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Boehner said the trade “has encouraged” U.S. enemies and increased risk to military and civilian personnel serving around the globe.

“Those who would argue the opposite, I think, are incredibly naïve,” Boehner said.

On Thursday, Boehner said the administration’s failure to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq “continues to have serious consequences for Iraq and American interests in the region...”

Boehner cited the administration’s “failed policies” in Syria, Libya and Egypt... “He continues to endanger our troops and citizens with his failed foreign policies,” Boehner said. “We need to elect a Congress that not only has the will to stop the president, but the power to do so, as well.”

Hagel reassures Congress: Freed Senior Taliban commanders merely directed deadly operations against US, but, like Bin Laden, they did not actually pull the trigger

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel assured lawmakers on Wednesday that the five senior Taliban commanders who were freed from the Guantanamo Bay prison last week in exchange for US military deserter, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, merely directed deadly operations against US forces, but like Osama Bin Laden, they never actually pulled the trigger that killed Americans.

We appreciate that comforting thought, Mr Hagel. Thank you.

From Fox News:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel [during a House Armed Services Committee hearing] on Wednesday sought to ease concerns about the controversial swap of five hardened Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl...

Hagel... tried to downplay the risk inherent in the exchange, claiming the former Guantanamo detainees were planners, and had not directly participated in attacks on Americans.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., quickly pointed out that Osama bin Laden was also a planner. "Bin Laden didn't pull a trigger...," McKeon said....

[Hagel] said there was "no direct evidence of any direct involvement in their direct attacks on the United States or any of our troops," though they were combatants and "part of planning."

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, asked him to clarify.

"So your point was they didn't pull the trigger, but they were senior commanders of the Taliban military who directed operations against the United States?" he asked.

"That's right," Hagel said.

"That's right." Heh....

It's sad, but comical nonetheless....

Gateway Pundit noted on Tuesday:

In remarks this weekend when asked to defend the release of five top Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay as part of the Bowe Bergdahl deal, Secretary of State John Kerry pushed back on the idea that the Taliban leaders who were released would make any difference to the fight.

“We are ending our combat role. Our combat role in Afghanistan is over.”

Our combat role is over? But what about the 9,000 plus US troops who will remain in the country until 2016? And what about the Afghan security forces? Is their combat role over? And, while it's true that the combat role of the Afghan forces might eventually come to an end when they desert their posts and hand over their weapons to the Taliban, nevertheless, that scenario could still be a few years away.

Mr. Hagel also conceded to lawmakers on Wednesday that, "We didn't handle some of this [prisoner exchange] right... We could have done a better job of keeping you informed."...

Heh, of course they didn't inform congress of the decision because President Obama's sole purpose in this prisoner exchange was to further his goal, and to fulfill his pledge, to close down Gitmo by freeing every last detainee. And, the only way to do reach that politically-mired goal is to find any pretext, like the release of Bowe Bergdahl, that allows the President to bypass congress and to release the Gitmo terrorist detainees, by hook or by crook!

Related Post: Gitmo prisoner release, and pretext, a dream come true for Obama!

Conclusion: As sad and pathetic as the comments from Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel might seem, there is no denying that these two clowns are an incredibly hilarious duo and that they represent the very best that comedy has to offer. It's simply undeniable.

A residual force of US troops in Iraq, and in Afghanistan - there's a huge distinction between the two

U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued the following statement on the Al-Qaeda splinter group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant seizing control of the Iraqi city of Mosul today:

“Our worst fears about Iraq are being realized today. The black flags of Al-Qaeda are flying over Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, just as they do over Fallujah.

"Al-Qaeda affiliated militants are now pressing their offensive into other parts of western Iraq and possibly beyond. This growing threat to our national security interests is the cost of President Obama’s decision to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq in 2011, against the advice of our commanders and regardless of conditions on the ground.

“Unfortunately, the President is now making the same disastrous mistake in Afghanistan, increasing the risk that Al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies will return there just as they are in Iraq. It is not too late for the president to reverse this catastrophic decision and instead make any withdrawal of U.S. forces after this year contingent on conditions on the ground.

"At the same time, we call on the president to explain to Congress and the American people how he plans to address the growing threat to our homeland and our national security interests posed by the rapidly expanding Al-Qaeda safe haven[s]."

President Obama is planning on retaining a residual force of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, until 2016, when all US troops will be withdrawn from the country except for a military advisory group.

In 2011, the President refused to leave behind a residual force of US troops in Iraq; he even boasted about it and proclaimed triumphantly that he was withdrawing every last soldier from the country.

It should be noted, however, that there's a huge distinction between leaving behind a residual force of US troops in Afghanistan in 2014 and retaining a similar force of troops in Iraq back in 2011.

In 2011, the country of Iraq was mostly quiet after the US military routed Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed insurgents. A residual force of US troops could have prevented a reemergence of the insurgency because, after all, it's a lot easier to prevent an insurgency from reemerging than it is to squash a full blown insurgency already in progress. But Obama stubbornly chose not to retain such a presence in Iraq.

However, unlike the sense of calm that existed in Iraq in 2011, the current situation in Afghanistan is much different. Violence in Afghanistan has not subsided at all; on the contrary, it has increased. Hence, there is no reason to assume that a residual force of US troops will have sufficient manpower to deal with the situation.

That's right, Afghanistan in 2014 is not Iraq in 2011.

A residual force of US troops in Iraq in 2011 could have maintained the calm and the peace. In Afghanistan, however, as US troops continue to facilitate the Obama-mandated pull out, i.e. the President's "exit strategy", no such calm exists, hence a residual force most definitely will not have the ability to create a peaceful and calm environment. A huge difference.

And, in 2016, when the residual force of US troops packs up and leaves Afghanistan, the situation will only get worse.

Obama: "The Bear is loose", Freudian Slip or unintended truism?

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticized President Obama's weak posture toward Russia. Mr. Romney's criticism later intensified after the President was caught on an open mic telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more "flexibility" to make [even] more concessions to Russia after the November 2012 election. Mr. Obama, however, responded mockingly to Mr. Romney's critique by asserting that the latter was "stuck in a Cold War mind warp."

The President also derided Mr. Romney during a debate in October of 2012, and told him: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

But sadly, Mr. Romney's critique of the President was spot-on, for ultimately, on a whole host of issues, including missile defense, arms reduction, Syria and Crimea, Obama has given his Russian counterparts plenty of flexibility, and plenty of room for them to make a mockery out of US foreign policy.

And, on Monday, President Obama inadvertently conceded that Mr. Romney was right.

Call it a Freudian slip, or an unintended truism if you will, nevertheless, for once in his life, Obama actually got it right!

The President and his chief of staff Denis McDonough slipped out of the White House on Monday and sauntered off to a nearby Starbucks where the President ordered a cup of tea to take back to the White House.

During his "Tea Party" excursion [pun intended], the President jokingly told one of his aides: "The bear is loose." Ostensibly, Mr. Obama was joking about his life in the so-called White House "bubble" and how he had managed, during his tea break, to escape briefly from the "bubble". But upon deeper reflection, the aforementioned "bear is loose" remark aptly describes Russia's status during the Obama Presidency and the extreme flexibility which has been given to Russia during the Obama Presidency. Bear in mind [pun unintended] that the bear is a symbol that has been widely used to represent Russia.

"The bear is loose," indeed.

A Freudian slip? Or an unintended truism?

No matter. The President deserves credit where credit is due, and, for once in his life, he actually got it right: "The bear is loose."

Bergdahl & Obama the Perfect match? Bergdahl, a perfect spokesman for Obama?

A number of of US soldiers who served with Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl - the US soldier who was released in a prisoner swap on Saturday - are calling Bergdahl a "deserter" whose "selfish act" resulted in the deaths of better men who previously tried to rescue him.

If Bergdahl did indeed desert his comrades, and, if reports are true that the Army Sgt., in a letter, once expressed a sense of shame for being an American, it would help explain why the Taliban kept him alive all this time.

Of course, the opportunity to obtain the release of five senior, "high-ranking" and "high-risk" terrorists from Gitmo might be enough of a reason for the Taliban to keep Bergdahl alive, however, the latter was held captive for nearly five years, and, for the Taliban, five years is an awful long period of time, and energy, to expand on keeping an American infidel alive.

It may seem ironic, but in truth, it is befitting for Obama that the one American captive, out of many, that he has managed to extract from enemy soil - albeit with a prisoner swap consisting of "high-ranking" and "high-risk" terrorists - might very well be a "deserter" who has bad feelings about this country. Befitting indeed...:

Many of those who served with [Bowe Bergdahl] -- veterans and soldiers... - call him a deserter whose "selfish act" ended up costing the lives of better men...

Former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009, said "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."...

Said Bergdahl's former squad leader, Greg Leatherman: "I'm pleased to see him returned safely. From experience I hope that he receives adequate reintegration counseling. I believe that an investigation should take place as soon as healthcare professionals deem him fit to endure one."...

According to first-hand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera, and a diary.

At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl, and many soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika Province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.

Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops... told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored...

Emails reported by the late Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in 2012 reveal what Bergdahl's fellow infantrymen learned within days of his disappearance: he told people that he no longer supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

"The future is too good to waste on lies," Bowe wrote to his parents. "And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."

Bergdahl wrote to them, "I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.".

CNN has not independently verified the authenticity of the emails...

[An American] platoon went to the village where [some] children said the American [Bergdahl] had gone.

"Villagers said an American did come through the area and was wanting water and someone who spoke English," [said, Cody, a former member of Bergdahl's squad]. "Wanted to meet with Taliban."

Former Pfc. Jose Baggett, 27, of Chicago, was also in Blackfoot Company, and said he was close to two men "killed because of his (Bergdahl's) actions."

"He walked off," Baggett told CNN. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is he was there to protect us and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources and some of those resources were soldiers' lives."...

While searching for [Bergdahl], ambushes and IEDs picked up tremendously. Enemy knew we would be coming. IEDs started being placed more effectively in the coming weeks. Ambushes were more calculated, cover and concealment was used," Cody tweeted.

On August 18, 2009, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen and Pfc. Morris Walker were killed by an IED in the search for Bergdahl. Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss was killed on August 26; 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews and Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek were killed after being attacked in Yahya Khail District on September 4; Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey was killed September 5 by an IED at the Forward Operating Base, Sharana.

Moreover, other operations were put on hold while the search for Bergdahl was made a top priority, according to officers who served in Afghanistan in that time...

One soldier with the 509th Regiment, a sister unit of the 501st, told CNN that after Bergdahl disappeared, the U.S. Army essentially was told to lock down the entire province of Paktika. He described sitting in the middle of a field with his platoon, vulnerable, with capabilities and personnel mismanaged throughout the region. Different platoons ran out of water, food, and ammunition.

Two mortarmen -- Pvt. Aaron Fairbairn and Pfc. Justin Casillas -- were killed in a July 4, 2009, attack.

"It was unbelievable," the soldier said. "All because of the selfish act of one person."

Befitting, indeed.....

One US soldier writes the following account:

"We search everywhere, and can't find [Bergdahl]. He left his weapon, his kit, and other sensitive items. He only took some water, a compass and a knife. We find some afghan kids shortly after who saw an american walking north asking about where the taliban are... We come to realize that the kid deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban… to join them...

His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit. There is also no way to know what he told the Taliban: Our movements, locations, tactics, weak points on vehicles and other things for the enemy to exploit are just a few possibilities...

The Government knows full well that he deserted. It looks bad and is a good propaganda piece for the Taliban. They refuse to acknowledge it....

Bergdahl is not a hero... He failed his brothers. Now, sons and daughters are growing up without their fathers who died for him and he will have to face that truth someday."

Bergdahl & Obama, the Perfect match? Bergdahl, the perfect spokesman for Obama? Should Bergdahl be appointed the new White House Press Secretary?

Befitting, indeed....

Previous Post: Gitmo prisoner release, and pretext, a dream come true for Obama!

Gitmo prisoner release, and pretext, a dream come true for Obama!

Despite the assertion of U.S Navy admiral and commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, William McRaven, that there is a need for a long-term detention & interrogation facility, like the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, to gather vital intelligence information, President Obama, in his zeal to fulfill a campaign pledge to close down Gitmo, has made the claim that there is no need for such a facility.

Hence, the President has sought all avenues, pretexts and excuses to free all detainees currently held in Gitmo, so that he could fulfill his pledge to close down the facility.

Sadly, many detainees who've been released from Gitmo in the past have rejoined their terrorist comrades and have gone on to kill even more US and NATO troops.

Many Gitmo detainees have been repatriated to other countries where they've been placed either in a prison or a rehab facility for a brief period of time before being released to the wild to inflict more human casualties.

In February of this year, the Afghan government released 65 Taliban fighters from a former U.S. prison that had been transferred to Afghan control. The release of the fighters came despite the objections of US military personnel who said that the terrorist detainees were "directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel", and that the terrorists would likely return to the battlefield to kill even more NATO and Afghan troops.

In any case, President Obama's zeal to shut down Gitmo is well-known. Hence, it is no surprise that the Obama administration on Saturday released 5 "high-ranking", senior terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for the release of US marine Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who had been languishing in captivity since 2009. The 5 Gitmo detainees were handed into Qatari custody as part of the deal. Some additional info on the 5 detainees at the end of this post.

The AP reported that the five terrorists detainees were being "transferred into the custody of Qatari officials. Under the conditions of their release, the detainees will be banned from traveling outside of Qatar for at least one year."

CNN reported:

A senior administration official told CNN, "The transfer of these individuals is not a concession -- it is fully in line with the President's goal of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."

The senior administration official - perhaps unwittingly - revealed the truth, namely that the release of the five terrorists from Gitmo was not a concession on Obama's part. Quite the contrary, Obama has desperately sought any pretext to free any and all Gitmo detainees so that he could eventually close down the facility and boast that his campaign pledge to shut down the facility was not an empty promise. Bergdahl's release allowed the President to free 5 more Gitmo detainees and avoid scrutiny. Hence, there was no concession on the President's part; quite the contrary, releasing the five Gitmo detainees, pretext and all, was a wish, and a dream, come true for Obama.

However, as the AP noted, the Gitmo detainees are being "transferred into the custody of Qatari officials. Under the conditions of their release, the detainees will be banned from traveling outside of Qatar for at least one year," which means that it won't be long before these terrorists are back in business.

Moreover, House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers opined on the prisoner swap that, "This fundamental shift in US policy signals to terrorists around the world a greater incentive to take U.S. hostages... I believe this decision will threaten the lives of American soldiers for years to come."

What's more, the stakes have now been raised with regards to other US citizens who are still languishing in captivity in various countries abroad. The price to obtain their release has now been upped because the bad guys now realize they can demand, and receive, a hearty ransom from Obama and company.

[Related Post: Abandoned American Pastor, Saeed Abedini, severely beaten in Iranian hospital; Iranians trying to extract more concessions from the Appeaser-in-Chief?]

Here's a teeny bit of info on the five detainees:

According to Fox News, the detainees "are believed to be the top five Taliban leaders at the prison." According to documents from the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, all five prisoners were high-ranking Taliban officials, and some were deemed high-risk and "likely to post a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies." Two of the detainees are wanted by the UN for war crimes. One of the detainees was "directly associated" with Osama bin Laden.

The documents from the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo also noted the following tidbit about one of the five detainees: "Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, detainee represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against US and Coalition forces."

The last paragraph should also come as no surprise, as Iran's assistance to the Taliban - arming and training the Taliban insurgents - is well-known. I've also noted on previous occasions the close ties between Iran and al Qaeda.

In a blog post earlier this year I noted:

According to the [2004] 9/11 Commission report, many of the 9/11 hijackers were known to have traveled in and out of Iran prior to the 9/11 attacks. The report also noted that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda operatives to travel back and forth between Iran and Afghanistan [to their training camps], and that Iranian border agents were ordered not to stamp the passports of al Qaeda operatives, which thereby facilitated their travel, and also helped conceal their whereabouts and their identities.

In 2011, members of the 9/11 Commission testified that Iranian border agents refrained from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States. The 9/11 commission report also noted that al-Qaeda operatives had long maintained contact with Iranian intelligence officials.

Additionally, the Telegraph-UK reported in 2008 that a letter "signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, [then]-al-Qaeda's second in command - [which was] written after the American embassy in Yemen was attacked by simultaneous suicide car bombs - thanked the leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards for providing assistance to al-Qaeda to set up its terrorist network in Yemen."

The NSA reads everyone's emails, did they read the emails that Snowden sent them? Or were Snowden's emails intercepted by the NSA before the NSA had a chance to read them?

Both the NSA and White House on Thursday rebutted claims made in a recent interview by NSA leaker Edward Snowden in which he asserted that he had expressed concerns about the Obama administration's surveillance programs, via email, to his NSA superiors before leaking classified documents to the news media, CBS reported on Thursday.

The NSA released a statement saying that Mr. Snowden, in his email communications, "did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse, but posed a legal question" about whether an executive order supersedes federal statute, or vice versa, CBS reported.

The NSA responded to Snowden's question in an email, and told him that "Executive Orders (E.O.s) have the 'force and effect of law.' That said, you are correct that E.O.s cannot override a statute."

It should be noted, however, that the NSA's assertion that "executive orders cannot override a statute" is clearly incorrect with regards to Obama's executive orders, which, no doubt, are not subject to the laws of the land. Ahem....

The NSA, in its rebuttal to Snowden's claims that he had expressed his concerns with the agency, asserted that Snowden was merely “asking for an explanation of some material that was in a training course he had just completed," News media outlets reported.

The CBS report goes on to say:

Beyond that brief discussion, the NSA said it could not uncover any further attempts by Snowden to express concerns.

"There are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations," the agency explained. "We have searched for additional indications of outreach from him in those areas and to date have not discovered any engagements related to his claims."...

And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney similarly said on Thursday that Snowden "did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse but posed a legal question that the office of general council addressed. There was not additional follow up noted."

“There are avenues available to somebody like Mr Snowden to raise those kind of concerns,” added Carney.

However, if indeed the NSA never did receive any additional emails from Snowden, the agency might want search through its huge trove of data mining collections because some of Snowden's emails might be sitting in one of those data mining repositories. In fact, it is quite feasible that the NSA inadvertently intercepted the emails that Snowden sent them, before the NSA could read them, and then stashed them away in a secret vault. Or, perhaps an independent NSA contractor intercepted Snowden's emails before they could reach the NSA's headquarters, in the hope that he, or she, could one day sell them to the media and rake in a huge profit. The NSA definitely needs to check into those possibilities.

Nevertheless, if, as the NSA claims, Snowden never expressed any concerns to the agency via email, there might be a reason for that: Since the NSA has been known to read other people's emails, Snowden might have been reluctant to express his concerns to the agency via email, for fear that the email would be read......

The NSA and Jay Carney claim that there "are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used" to communicate his concerns to the agency. But what other avenues did he have? Snowden likely ruled out placing a landline telephone call to the NSA for fear that the agency would place a permanent tap on his phone, and eavesdrop on all his private conversations.

Using a cell phone was also out of the question for the very same reason. Moreover, all of Snowden's private text messages would become an open book for the NSA.

And, while Snowden could have easily dropped by the NSA's headquarters to express his concerns about the surveillance program, who's to say the agency wouldn't have placed a tapping device inside his clothing, or implanted a bugging device into his skin?

The only other option available to Snowden was to communicate his concerns with the agency via carrier pigeon. However, had Snowden gone the carrier pigeon route, PETA might have had him arrested for abusing an animal for personal use.

Conclusion: Working for the NSA can be an extremely taxing experience, nevertheless, because of Obama's expanded use of executive orders, and because Obama's executive powers override all statutes, laws, apprehensions and misgivings, the lives of NSA employees, and contractors, have been made a little bit easier........

Kerry says Snowden engaging in Kerry-Like Betrayal - [Vietnam War] - Video Montage

During a round of morning interviews with several of the major television networks on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry accused NSA [National Security Agency] leaker Edward Snowden of engaging in the same kind of betrayal and traitorous activities that Kerry once participated in.

When Kerry returned from the Vietnam War in the early 70's, he accused his fellow American soldiers of committing war crimes. Kerry's accusations provoked the ire of countless Vietnam War vets who said that not only was Kerry falsely maligning them, but that he was guilty of betrayal and that he was harming American POW's in Vietnam, and that he was essentially advocating on behalf of the North Vietnamese, and strengthening the enemy. Vietnam War vets labeled Kerry a traitor.

Likewise, Secretary of State Kerry said on Wednesday: "Edward Snowden is a coward. He is a traitor. And he has betrayed his country... What he's done is hurt his country."

Mr. Kerry's comments are a clear substantiation of the old adage: "It takes one to know one."

Video Montage below:

Some Libyans are profoundly unhappy with the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the terrorist group hired to protect the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012

Reuters reported on Wednesday:

Libyan warplanes bombed militia bases in Benghazi on Wednesday as part of a renegade former general's campaign to purge the chaotic North African state of Islamist militants, witnesses and officials said.

Two jets attacked a base belonging to the February 17 brigade, one of the Islamist-leaning armed groups operating in Benghazi, and an Ansar al-Sharia militant base in the west of the city, a Reuters witness and an air force official said...

There were no immediate reports of casualties.... A Reuters witness at the February 17 base said there were no casualties and only structural damage.

Libya's Ansar al-Sharia [is] a militant group, listed as a terrorist group by Washington...

The AFP noted that, "The powerful" February 17 "brigade is made up of Islamist ex-rebels, including radicals, and is suspected of links with Ansar Al-Sharia, a group classified as a terrorist group by Washington."

But the February 17 Islamist brigade, which was tasked by the Obama administration to provide security at the US consulate in Benghazi - which later came under attack - apparently, has not been classified as a terrorist group by the administration. After all, how would it look if Obama and company labeled the very group it had hired to protect the consulate as a terrorist group?

I noted in May of 2013 as follows:

Eric Nordstrom - the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya - testified at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing earlier this month that the [February 17 brigade] militia - which was hired to guard the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - issued threats, in July of 2012, against former U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens and Senator John McCain.

Moreover, Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified that the aforementioned militia was complicit in the Benghazi attacks - which begs the question: Why did the Obama administration allow these terrorist thugs to guard the consulate?

Newsmax reported last year that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade "had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page some months before the deadly attack."

Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia...

The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.

On April 23, House Republicans released an interim progress report on their investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited “numerous reports” that “the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.”...

On June 28..., the brigade posted a... graphic [which featured] two rows of pictures... The images include some of the leading figures of modern-day jihadism, including al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden and the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Earlier this month four Libyan protesters were killed while demonstrating against the February 17 Martyrs Brigade.

All Africa reported:

Protestors... moved to the February 17th Brigade locale and demanded its disbandment, blaming it for assassinations in Benghazi.

If the Brigade is not removed from Libya, "it will spread" [like a disease] "and kill all Libyans; we'll become like Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan," a Libyan teacher proclaimed.

On Saturday, Justice Minister Salah Marghani told reporters that the brigade was ordered to leave the city within 72 hours...

Computer engineer Faraj Ali confirmed that the "February 17th brigade camp is one of the biggest military camps in Libya with all of its weapons, but all such weapons are hidden in farms..."

"Col. Wanis Bukhamada has raided their farms more than once, and has even raided al-Nayrouz resort, and directly after that, they kidnapped his son," Ali added.

Abu Omar al-Manfi, a car electrician, said, "The so-called February 17th brigade is engaged in the most horrific forms of torture and is sponsoring terrorists and those exploiting religion... They must be arrested and brought to trial."

However, as noted earlier, the State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission... After all, as Hillary Clinton is wont to say, "What difference does it make?"

It is also safe to assume that the Brigade will not be designated a terrorist group by the Obama administration anytime soon.

After all, how would it look? Lol....

Related Videos:

Benghazi hearing: Consulate guards' militia threatened Stevens & McCain - was complicit in attacks:




Benghazi: Obama administration receives 3:00 AM call from Gregory Hicks:

McCain calls on Shinseki to resign, but Obama is still getting a pass

Despite a reluctance on the part of President Obama to axe the current Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Eric Shinseki, due to the fact that 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, nevertheless, an inspector general report released on Wednesday has prompted new calls for Shinseki's resignation.

It should be noted, however, that, despite President Obama's refusal to respond to calls, nearly a year ago, "to take immediate steps to stop the growing pattern of preventable veteran deaths", there have been no calls for Obama's resignation thus far.

Fox News reported on Wednesday:

The official watchdog for the Department of Veterans Affairs claimed in a scathing report that the department has a "systemic" problem with clinics lying about patient wait times, leading top Republicans to join the calls for Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign...

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who until now had held off on urging Shinseki to resign, said during a press conference... Wednesday afternoon that "it's time for Secretary Shinseki to step down" -- and that if he won't, "then I call on the president of the United States to relieve him of his duties, fire him.

The Daily Caller noted that, 'The Arizona senator — who, like Shinseki, served in Vietnam — at first was hesitant to axe the VA.'

“I have not called for it. I was going to wait until the hearing that’s going to take place here very soon," McCain told CNN. "But this keeps piling up. So I haven’t said this before, but I think it’s time for General Shinseki to — to move on.”

However, it appears as if President Obama will not be held accountable for his prolonged indifference and lack of response.

As usual, Obama gets a pass.......

Obama chicanery: "Afghanistan will not be a PERFECT place"; Heh.....

Speaking at a press briefing Tuesday about his exit strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama asserted: "We have to recognize that Afghanistan will not be a perfect place!"

Unfortunately, what the President deliberately, and cunningly, failed to mention is that violence in Afghanistan has increased significantly during his tenure in office. Hence, the question of Afghanistan's future is not about 'perfection' or lack of 'perfection', its about total devastation, terror, and the enemy abroad.

Libya: Obama administration telegraphs terrorists: Don't attack us NOW, marines arriving "in a matter of DAYS!"

Despite the latest security concerns in Libya - due to the recent escalation of violence in the terrorist infested country - and despite the recent decision by several other countries to shut down their embassies there, the Obama administration, thus far, has refrained from taking similar action, presumably because the apparent urgency to close down the embassy would reflect poorly on the administration's failed policies there.

A defense official told CNN early last week that the decision to evacuate the embassy is "minute by minute, hour by hour," which means that the safety and security of US embassy personnel there is subject to the Obama administration's "minute by minute, hour by hour," whims.

CNN also reported at the time: "Four additional U.S. V-22 Osprey aircraft "arrived overnight" at the naval base in Sigonella, Italy, to join four V-22s and 200 Marines that had been moved there last week, a U.S. defense source said."

And, today, the AFP reported:

The United States is deploying an amphibious assault ship with about 1,000 marines off the coast of Libya in case the US embassy must be evacuated, a US defense official said Tuesday.

The USS Bataan was to be in the area "in a matter of days," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Question (1): Why did the administration wait till now to deploy the USS Bataan and the 1,000 US marines to the Libyan coast, when security concerns were already heightened there at least several weeks ago?

Answer: Because, as I stated earlier, the need to deploy a thousand marines to Libya reflects poorly on the administration's failed policies there. Hence, the directive to deploy the marines was only given when it was deemed an absolute, 'can't wait any longer' necessity by the Obama administration , and not a minute sooner! As CNN noted early last week: the decision to evacuate the embassy is "minute by minute, hour by hour."

Question (2): Why did the administration, in today's statement to the media, essentially telegraph to the terrorists that it will be "a matter of days", and not sooner, before the USS Bataan reaches the coast of Libya?

Answer: Let's put it this way: If the US embassy in Libya is attacked before the USS Bataan assault ship and the 1,000 marines arrive, the Obama administration has already prepared its main talking point for the media and the American people, namely: "We told you it would take time to deploy the US Bataan and the 1,000 marines to Libya! So don't point fingers at us!"

Meanwhile, the administration has also conveyed the very same message to the terrorists, thereby telegraphing to the terrorists that, if they do decide to attack the US embassy, the best time would be now, or within the next 2 or 3 days.

Nevertheless, at least the administration has the common decency to keep the terrorists up to date on its plans and to ensure that the terrorists are not left in the dark - thereby adhering to the President's 2009 pledge, namely that, "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of my Presidency."

Transparency, indeed......

Related Post: White House blows cover of CIA Station Chief in Kabul, Afghanistan

Iran still denying IAEA access to sanitized nuclear research site, Parchin

From Reuters - May 26:

The U.N. nuclear watchdog appears no closer to finding out what happened at a military site at the center of its investigation into suspected atom bomb research by Iran... The IAEA [said on Friday] satellite images showed "ongoing construction activities" at Parchin, a finding that could add to Western suspicions that Iran has been trying to hide any incriminating evidence of illicit nuclear-related experiments there.

"It seems clear that there is more sanitization going on," one Western envoy said, noting indications of major alteration work at Parchin since early 2012, such as soil removal and asphalting of the specific place the IAEA wants to see.

"I can think of no other explanation for 28 months of cleanup and denied IAEA access at Parchin except an attempt to hide all traces of something from IAEA environmental sampling."

The IAEA, which has requested Parchin access for more than two years, says it has information that Iran built a large steel chamber there for explosives tests, possibly more than a decade ago. It said back in 2011 that "such experiments would be strong indicators of possible nuclear weapon development"...

The IAEA's suspicions about Parchin were part of a 2011 report that included a trove of intelligence information pointing to Iranian research in the past that could be relevant for nuclear weapons, some of which it said may be continuing.

White House blows cover of CIA Station Chief in Kabul, Afghanistan

In case you missed it, the Washington Post reported on Sunday:

The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops...

The list was circulated by e-mail to reporters who traveled to Afghanistan with Obama, and disseminated further when it was included in a “pool report,” or summary of the event meant to be shared with other news organizations, including foreign media, not taking part in the trip.

So, it seems the CIA official's name has been revealed to both US and foreign media organizations, which should certainly be a comforting thought for the CIA official.

The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country...

Conyers & Obama, voting petition double standard

During his run for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Barack Obama 'effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition,' CNN reported in 2008.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them... a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today in 2008]. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."...

"He came from Chicago politics," Jay Stewart of the Chicago's Better Government Association said. "Politics ain't beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you're pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that's what was necessary at the time, that's what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not."...

But Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2007: "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up. My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."...

One... opponent who Obama eliminated by challenging his petitions, Gha-is Askia..., back at the time he was running for state Senate..., said he was dismayed Obama would use such tactics.

"It wasn't honorable," he said. "I wouldn't have done it."

He said the Obama team challenged every single one of his petitions on "technicalities."

If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn't properly registered, those petitions also were thrown out...

Kass, the Chicago Tribune columnist, said [in 2008] the national media... have bought into a narrative that Obama is strictly a reformer. The truth, Kass says, is that he is a bare-knuckled politician...That's the politics he plays."

However, in the 2014 US Senate race in Michigan, the veteran Democrat operative from Michigan, Rep. John Conyers, is not running against Barack Obama, the Messiah; hence the blatant double standard; hence the rules permitting the use of bare-knuckled politics do not apply:

Reuters reported on Friday that, despite the fact that 'John Conyers had less than half the required signatures of valid registered voters on the petitions he turned in to qualify for the Aug. 5 primary ballot', a US Distrtict Judge ruled that, 'the requirement that petition circulators be registered voters — the issue that got Conyers booted off the ballot in the first place — put serious limitations on the free speech rights of the circulators, the people who signed the petitions and Conyers.'

“The public interest favors the enjoining of the likely unconstitutional Registration Statute,” for circulators, the Judge said....

Hence, while the requirement that petition circulators be registered voters invalidated the voting petitions of Obama's opponents in 1996, and cleared the way for the Messiah to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in Illinois, the same requirement mustn't invalidate the voting petitions of John Conyer's, because Conyers, the veteran Democrat operative, is not running against the Messiah.

Conyers said in a prepared statement Friday that the Judge's "decision affirms that all should have equal entry and access to the political process.”

Sadly, the aforementioned principle does not apply when Obama is running for office.

Obama feigns outrage over Veterans Affairs [VA], IRS scandals - Press Briefing

In typical fashion, President Obama on Wednesday feigned outrage over recent news media reports that detailed some of the problems and scandals plaguing the Veterans Affairs health care system.

Despite having been informed of the VA problems quite some time ago, the Politician-in-Chief acted as if he was shocked by the news media reports.

Likewise, in May of 2013, the President feigned outrage over revelations that the IRS was targeting Tea Party and Conservative groups.

"It's inexcusable," the President said at the time. "And Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency."

However, by the time 2014 came rolling around, and the IRS scandal had been largely forgotten, Mr. Obama no longer felt the need to admit that Conservatives were being targeted, nor did he feel the need to feign contriteness. In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, in February of 2014, Mr. Obama asserted in a scoffing tone - in typical phony fashion - that there wasn't even the slightest bit of corruption on the part of the IRS when it targeted Conservative groups.

Typical, vintage Obama...... See video below:

Abandoned American Pastor, Saeed Abedini, severely beaten in Iranian hospital; Iranians trying to extract more concessions from the Appeaser-in-Chief?

From Fox News:

The American citizen being held in Iran for alleged crimes related to his faith and work as a Christian pastor was yanked from a hospital bed, beaten and taken back to one of the Islamic Republic's infamous prisons, his family charges.

Pastor Saeed Abedini had spent the past two months in a hospital for injuries allegedly suffered at the hands of guards and inmates in Iran’s Evin and Rajai Shahr prisons when he was once again beaten and hauled back to prison, according to family members who say they witnessed the beating.

"This news is devastating to our family...” his wife, Naghmeh Abedini, told FoxNews.com. "Saeed's family, who was present at the hospital when this occurred, witnessed the severe beatings that Saeed received - at one point seeing him collapse before being taken away. We're very concerned about his health."

In March, when Abedini was transferred to a private hospital in Iran, where he was told he would receive further tests for his worsening medical condition as well as surgery for the chronic stomach pain suffered as a result of repeated beatings. But soon after being admitted, he was shackled and beaten by guards, according to family members. He was also denied medical treatment and was not allowed to see family members initially, they said.

It was not immediately clear why Abedini was suddenly transferred back to Rajai Shahr.

However, the American Center for Law and Justice, which has been representing Abedini’s family, said in a statement on Tuesday that, according to Saeed's family members, "one of the guards who was involved in the transfer mentioned the Iranian nuclear talks as a possible motive."

It should be noted that the Iranians do not need a motive to beat up and torture prisoners, especially American prisoners who are typically arrested, sent to jail without justification and beaten to a pulp. Indeed, torture is part and parcel of the Iranian jail experience. Hence, Saeed Abedini, who has been abandoned by the Obama administration - like many other Americans who are currently being held captive on foreign soil -  has been beaten brutally -  in typical fashion - over the course of his detention.

Nevertheless, if the Iranian nuclear talks are indeed the motive for the latest beatings, it would mean that not only has President Obama failed to win Abedini's release - not only has he failed to make Abedini's release a precondition to nuclear negotiations - but also that the Iranians are using Saeed Abedini as a pawn, and beating him anew, to squeeze even more concessions on their nuclear program from the weak Appeaser-in-Chief, President Obama.

Appeasement breeds more appeasement; it also breeds more torture and cruelty from the very people whose pacification is being sought.

How sad.

Related Video below - from February: "Obama offers phony, perfunctory, token prayer for Abandoned American Pastor Saeed Abedini at National Prayer Breakfast":

Iranian & US regimes arrest video posters

The AFP reported:

[Iranian] Police said on Tuesday they had arrested six Iranians suspected of posting a version of US singer Pharrell Williams's hit song "Happy" - [a song about feeling high from a state of happiness] - on the Internet.

The clip shows three men and three unveiled women singing and dancing to the tune in the streets and on Tehran rooftops.

"After a vulgar clip which hurt public chastity was released in cyberspace, police decided to identify those involved in making that clip," Tehran police chief Hossein Sajedinia was quoted as saying...

"Following a series of intelligence and police operations and after coordinating with the judiciary, all the suspects were identified and arrested."

[An Iranian news agency] said the detainees were three men and three women and that they "confessed to their criminal acts".

In a similar occurrence, although it involves a video of a less benign nature, the producer, and poster, of an anti-Islamic YouTube video, which President Obama falsely, and cunningly, blamed for the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, was arrested on September 27, 2012.

Prosecutors claimed rather disingenuously that they were charging the video producer with violating terms of a probation from a 2010 conviction, however, they then added, begrudgingly, that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film. But sadly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude why the video filmmaker was suddenly arrested: He was the phony talking point that President Obama desperately latched on to; he was the scapegoat, he was Obama's ticket to victory in the 2012 Presidential election.

Ultimately, Obama always gets what he wants: He falsely blamed the filmmaker for the attacks, propagated the false narrative that the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to the video - and not pre-planned terrorist attacks - the filmmaker was subsequently arrested - and Obama was able to exonerate himself from any blame in the crucial weeks leading up to the November 2012 Presidential election.

And while it's true that the aforementioned YouTube video is not as benign as the Pharrell Williams "Happy" song video, nevertheless the moral of the story is clear: The Iranian regime and the Obama administration will take whatever actions are necessary to advance their cause, their lies, and their false narratives.

Sickening. Ughh........

Twin bombings kill at least 118 people in Nigeria; #BringBackOurTwitterCampaign, Michelle Obama!

If there are two lessons that the First Lady and the President have taught us over the last five and half years, it is the following:

1) It is extremely crucial to use social media outlets like twitter to counter the abduction and murder of innocent men, women and children by "misguided" and "unfortunate" terrorists.

2) We must never shame the terrorists by referring to terrorism as "terrorism", or by referring to the battle against terror as a "War On Terror".

The battle against the terrorists should be referred to in the more milder and benign lexicon formulated by the President and his administration, namely "Overseas Contingency Operations."

However, merely tweeting out a few times one particular slogan like #BringBackOurGirls will not get the job done, as evidenced by the ongoing destruction and continuous violence in Nigeria. We must strengthen our twitter and social media campaign, or the violence will continue to escalate:

From the AFP:

Twin car bombings killed 46 people on Tuesday at a crowded market in the central Nigerian city of Jos..., while 45 people were seriously injured... The second bomb came from a minibus some 20 minutes later...

Update: The AFP later reported that, according to the co-ordinator of the National Emergency Management Agency, at least 118 people were killed and 56 were injured.

"More bodies may be in the debris," he told AFP, adding: "The exact figure of the dead bodies recovered as of now is 118... 56 people were injured."

CNN quoted the NEMA co-ordinator as saying: "The death toll stands at 118. This is the number of victims recovered from the scene of the explosions, but we are still searching through the smoldering debris for more bodies. Reuters quoted the NEMA co-ordinator as saying "We've now recovered 118 bodies from the rubble. This could rise by morning, as there is still some rubble we haven't yet shifted."

However, the AFP noted that, "the police in Plateau state, of which Jos is the capital, disputed the NEMA figure, and maintained that 46 were killed and 45 injured.

"We are saying 46," said state police commissioner Chris Olakpe. "That's the number we have in the morgues. But we are not ruling out more bodies."

However, the figure [of 118 deaths] cited by the National Emergency Management Agency is likely more accurate due to the fact that the agency is in charge of digging through the rubble and recovering the bodies.

Back to the initial AFP report:

"Scores died. Mostly women," Pam Ayuba, spokesman for Plateau state's Governor Jonah Jang, said earlier.

Boko Haram Islamists are widely believed to have active cells in Jos and have attacked the city before... The group claimed a July 2012 attack at a funeral outside the city that targeted mourners and the security services...

"What we are doing now is (trying) to evacuate the dead bodies... many of them are burnt beyond recognition," said Mohammed Abdulsalam, coordinator for the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

"The fire is still raging. Many shops are consumed by the inferno," he said.

Rescue workers and the security services were struggling to control the crowd amid the chaos.

The bombings follow two separate attacks on the same bus station in a suburb of the capital, Abuja, on April 14 and May 1, that killed more than 90 people. The first was claimed by Boko Haram.

Four people were also killed on Sunday in a suicide car bomb attack in... the northern city of Kano that had been previously targeted by the group.

Michelle Obama, international celebrities and everyone else must respond firmly to the unspeakable violence with additional tweets, or it will be too late! Moreover, the public should send out tweets to the First Lady and demand that she "Bring Back The Twitter Campaign!", and that she continue to respond to the escalating violence with her extremely valuable and highly cherished tweets. Use the following hashtag - #BringBackOurTwitterCampaignMichelle!

We can win this thing - however, victory is ultimately dependent on Michelle Obama's Twitter Contingency Operation and our own twitter endeavors! So, let's huddle up to our keypads and tweet!

#BringBackOurTwitterCampaignMichelle!

McShane shames religion, defames and denigrates religious opponents of gay marriage

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, an openly gay Federal judge, who was appointed to the Federal court last year by President Obama, struck down Oregon's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban on Monday.

McShane, who is currently raising a child with his same-sex partner, has claimed rather disingenuously that he has no conflict of interest in the case because he has no intention of marrying his partner.

'McShane ruled the voter-approved ban unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples, and he ordered the state to stop enforcing it,' the AP reported.

"I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families," wrote McShane, who no doubt sees in these plaintiffs his own family, which consists of a gay couple and a son - whom, according to McShane, do not pose a conflict of interest.

After Oregon's Attorney General declined to defend the ban, the National Organization for Marriage sought to intervene in the court case and to represent voters who approved the 2004 state constitutional amendment which defined marriage as between one man and a woman, but McShane rejected its request.

Scotus Blog reported that McShane, who claims to have no personal conflict of interest in the case, "closed his opinion with a number of personal observations about an anti-gay game that was played in his youth and about how his son had recently looked at a sweater given him for Christmas and dismissed it, saying 'Dad….that is so gay.' This, the judge said, is part of the legacy that has been handed down to today’s generation from a “darker level” of gay bashing in the past."

McShane, in his written opinion, seems to base his ruling on the assertion that a ban on same sex marriage is discriminatory toward a particular sex orientation, namely gays, and deprives them of their equal rights

"It is beyond question that Oregon's marriage laws place burdens upon same-gender couples that are not placed upon opposite-gender couples." McShane writes. "This classification implicates the Equal Protection Clause ["A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of protection of the laws in the most literal sense."] The Equal Protection Clause does not allow classifications drawn solely for the purpose of disadvantaging a particular group intentionally singled out for unequal treatment."

But of course, contrary to McShane's biased view [and his conflict of interest], there is nothing discriminatory about Oregon's marriage laws. For ultimately, the real question is: how do we define marriage? If we define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, then only a man and woman couple can receive federal marital benefits. And, just as there is nothing discriminatory about depriving non married couples from receiving federal marital benefits, there is nothing discriminatory about depriving gay couples from receiving federal marital benefits, if their union does not fit the definition of "marriage".

McShane then goes on to besmirch and shame religion, which might prompt some to suggest that perhaps he should change his name to Michael "McShame":

"I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families," McShame writes. "It was' these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004.

"Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called "smear the queer"... Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today' s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says "dad ... that is so gay.

"It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them."

After he finishes attacking religion and smearing all those whose religious beliefs compel them to oppose same sex marriage, Mr. McShame engages in a bit of hypocrisy and double talk, as he criticizes those who hurl "accusations of religious bigotry", when he himself just finished hurling "accusations of religious bigotry" and basically smeared all religious opponents of same sex marriage.

"It is at times difficult to see past the shrillness of the debate." McShane continues. "Accusations of religious bigotry and banners reading "the Lord Hates Fags" make for a messy democracy and, at times, test the First Amendment resolve of both sides. At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds;
that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities."

Sadly, however, the "popular trend" [and perhaps the shifting majorities] happens to be Mr. McShame and his phony talking points.

Ultimately, Mr. McShame is a bigoted and despicable hypocrite who assails and denigrates religion!

He should have been recused from this case due to conflict of interest - and his bigotry - but sadly Oregon is now stuck with McShane's convoluted, biased and prejudiced ruling.

Swiss voters reject minimum wage proposal fearing it will cause spike in country's low unemployment rate and damage Switzerland’s strong economy

Switzerland currently has no minimum wage; it also has a robust economy and one the lowest unemployment rates in the world [3.2 percent]. Hence the AP reported on Sunday:

Worried about upsetting Switzerland’s strong economy..., more than three-quarters of Swiss voters rejected a plan Sunday to create the world’s highest minimum wage...

The Swiss trade union’s idea of making the minimum wage 22 Swiss francs ($24.70) per hour fell flat by a vote of 76.3 percent opposed... Swit­zer­land has no minimum wage. [The proposal would have created Switzerland’s first minimum wage.]

From Reuters:

About 76 percent of voters... dismissed the proposal made by Swiss union SGB and backed by the Socialist and Green parties for a minimum wage of 22 Swiss francs ($25) per hour, final results showed.

The clear rejection of the proposed minimum wage... brings relief to business leaders worried the measure would have hurt competitiveness and damaged the Swiss workplace.

"If the initiative had been accepted, without doubt that would have led to job cuts, particularly in remote and structurally weaker regions," Swiss Economy Minister Johann Schneider-Ammann said at a news conference...

Swiss voters historically have vetoed what they feel are threats to the country's economic success

From the USA Today:

The Swiss Business Federation, Economiesuisse, said the results show that the Swiss people would not tolerate government intervention in a free-market economy.

“We were able to show that the initiative hurts low-paid workers in particular,” the group's president, Heinz Karrer said.

Forcing employers to hike wages can mean other cuts — including jobs. At 3.2 percent, Switzerland's unemployment rate is among the lowest globally.

Swiss Economics Minister Johann Schneider-Ammann warned that “if jobs are being cut, the weakest suffer most.”

From the AP:

Opinion polls had indicated that most voters... argued [the minimum wage proposal] would cost jobs and erode economic competitiveness...

Economy Minister Johann Schneider-Ammann said: "If the initiative had been accepted, it would have led to workplace losses, especially in rural areas where less qualified people have a harder time finding jobs."

Likewise, here in the US, the Congressional Budget Office reported in February that President Obama's proposed minimum wage increase would lead to more joblessness and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. [And while it's true that President Obama is not seeking a $24.70 an hour minimum wage as was proposed in Switzerland, it is important to note that due to Switzerland's highly robust and competitive economy, the cost of living there is significantly higher, hence the proposed $24.70 an hour wage in Switzerland would be akin to a much smaller hourly wage here in the US (- about $14 an hour). (Bottom line, as the CBO confirmed in February, Obama's proposed wage increase would lead to even more joblessness. The Swiss people understand that concept, which is why they overwhelmingly rejected the minimum wage proposal in their country.)]

See February post:  CBO: Obama's proposed minimum wage increase would lead to even more joblessness

Additionally, small business owners in Switzerland also voiced concern that the Socialist Party's proposed minimum wage would price their products out of the market.

VA, Shinseki - Why isn't Obama resigning and being held accountable for negligence?

CNN's Jake Tapper on Thursday questioned White House chief of staff Denis McDonough about the deadly wait times at many VA hospitals, and asked him why the Obama administration "ignored" calls for VA reform. [See video below.]

"This letter from [Jeff Miller], the chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, from one year ago warns of dramatic problems at the VA, a perfect illustration of the management failures, deception, lack of accountability permeating VA's health care system, an alarming pattern of serious and significant patient care issues," Tapper said. "This was sent to President Obama in May 2013, according to Congressman [Jeff] Miller. His office got no response from the president. It was referred to General [Eric] Shinseki [the Secretary of Veterans Affairs] who, according to them, sent back boilerplate. This is a year ago [Mr. Miller] was warning about this."

Tapper went on to ask the White House chief of staff, "How many stories like this, how many letters like this, how many dead veterans" will it take before the White House decides to takes action to rectify the situation?

"This letter [from Congressman Miller] was sent a year ago, and you guys ignored it," Tapper said.

Tapper also asked McDonough why, for months, Secretary Shinseki rebuffed interview requests from reporters who were seeking information about the problems plaguing the VA hospitals - problems that have led to numerous fatalities among military veterans.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, last week, quoted President Obama as saying that he has full confidence in the VA Secretary and that he has no plans to ask for Shinseki's resignation - which prompted Tapper to ask McDonough, "How on earth can the president have full confidence in him?"

Tapper also asked the White House Chief of Staff why Shinseki is not being "held accountable" for his gross negligence.

However, an even bigger question that needs to be addressed is: Why isn't President Obama being held accountable for his own gross negligence, namely his prolonged and protracted silence and his refusal to respond to numerous pleas over the last year to take action to halt the growing wave of preventable veteran deaths?

Pray tell, is the President the only person on this planet who is immune to accountability?

Secretary Shinseki and President Obama should do the right thing and tender their resignations immediately. The negligence they've exhibited in disregarding the problems in the VA and ignoring the pleas for assistance has led to numerous unnecessary deaths among military veterans; it is time for Obama and Shinseki to step down.



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

20-month old toddler, the latest US citizen to be abandoned by Obama; toddler's mother faces execution, Obama administration ignores pleas for help - Mr. President, #BringBackOurBoys now!

With the Obama administration ignoring the plight of a 20-month old boy - whose mother currently faces execution - and the plight of four other Americans held in captivity under the most horrific conditions, it's time to create a new Twitter Hashtag:  #BringBackOurBoys - now!

Reuters reported on Thursday:

A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.

Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.

Judge Abbas al Khalifa asked Ibrahim whether she would return to Islam. After she said "I am a Christian" the death sentence was handed down, the judicial sources said.

Outside the court, about 50 people held up signs that read "Freedom of Religion", while some Islamists celebrated the ruling...

However, the Reuters report that refers to the woman's "newly adopted Christian faith", is incorrect.  PJ Media reported on Wednesday that the woman's Muslim father abandoned the family when she was 6 years old, leaving her to be raised by her Orthodox Christian mother. Hence, Christianity was not her "newly adopted" faith, but rather her lifelong religion. In any case, Mrs. Ibrahim has been sentenced to death, and apparently, according to the following PJ Media report, the Obama administration couldn't care less.

Par for the course.

From PJ Media:

Meriam Yahia Ibrahim, 27, is a graduate of the school of medicine at Khartoum University and a lifelong Christian. Meriam met and married her naturalized American husband in Khartoum in 2012, and they have a 20-month old toddler son. Currently pregnant with their second child, Meriam was sentenced to death for apostasy and 100 lashes for adultery by the Public Order Court in El Haj Yousif, Khartoum, Sudan on May 11, 2014...

A year ago, a purported relative of Ibrahim opened a case against her (and her husband) in Halat Kuku Court of Khartoum North for alleged “adultery” under article 146 of the Sudan Criminal Code because of her marriage to a Christian. Ibrahim’s husband, Daniel Wani, was accused of proselytizing a Muslim, and eventually authorities added the apostasy charge to Ibrahim herself...

Ibrahim’s Sudanese Muslim father abandoned the family when she was 6 years old, leaving her to be raised by her Ethiopian Orthodox Christian mother... Three potential witnesses from Western Sudan who traveled to the hearing to validate Ibrahim’s lifelong adherence to Christianity were denied the opportunity to provide evidence. Indeed the refusal to accept such witness testimony, and denying a priori the validity of Ibrahim’s own claims, would be entirely consistent with a Sharia Court’s rejection (or dismissal) of non-Muslim testimony because infidels are deemed to be of a lower order of truthfulness...

Implying that her sentence might be annulled or reduced if she converted to Islam, the Public Order Court informed Mrs Ibrahim she had until tomorrow, Thursday, May 15, 2014 to pursue this option. Without remedial intervention—including by the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, and the U.S. State Department—the whipping and execution might be administered soon after giving birth to her second child, due next month.

And apparently, according to the Reuters report published on Thursday, Mrs Ibrahim missed the deadline.

PJ Media goes on to say:

How has the Obama Administration reacted to the grotesque (if Sharia-sanctioned) violation of Meriam Ibrahim’s basic human rights—including the incarceration of her 20-month old toddler son Martin, a U.S. citizen?

Daniel Wani described the unconscionable indifference to his wife and family’s plight. Re-affirming what is quite evident, “My wife was never a Muslim,” Wani—a U.S. citizen—pleaded with “the government of the USA to help me.” But Wani claims that when he called the U.S. Embassy on April 9, 2014 a representative in Khartoum informed him of their lack of interest in the case.

Noting that the couple’s toddler boy, Martin, is a U.S. citizen by virtue of his father’s U.S. citizenship, Daniel Wani also declared that U.S. Embassy officials in Khartoum have not cooperated in granting the family travel papers to leave The Sudan, and further have told him he must prove he is the father with a DNA test prior to even offering any assistance!

I have tried to apply for papers to travel to the USA with my wife and child, but the American Embassy in Sudan did not help me. My son is an American citizen living in a difficult situation in prison. I will have to take a DNA sample in Khartoum, then send it to the USA for testing. I have provided wedding documents and the baby’s birth certificate, and doors were closed on [my] face.

The Obama administration State Department’s despicable behavior may mark a new nadir in our capitulation to Sharia which now includes coldly allowing a U.S. citizen toddler to be abused by Islam’s totalitarian “legal system.“

Add Mrs. Ibrahim's 20-month old son to the list of US citizens who are languishing in captivity on foreign soil under the most frightening, horrific and inhumane conditions - a list which includes, among others, Saeed Abedini, Alan Gross, Andrew Tahmooressi, Robert Levinson etc. etc. etc.

Question: If indeed, the toddler's mother, Mrs. Ibrahim, is ultimately executed, will President Obama blame it on, A) An anti-Muslim video? B) George W. Bush? C) Republican hostage-takers? D) All of the above? E) All of the above and any other excuse Obama can concoct?

Mr. President, Bring back our boys now! #Bringbackourboys - now!

Biden, Kerry, Ukrainian gas company, MBNA - Conflict of Interests

Biden's latest conflict of interest:

One of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s sons has become a member of the board of a Ukrainian gas company linked to ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Burisma Holdings Ltd. says Hunter Biden, 44, joined its board earlier this month and is now in charge of its legal affairs.

Biden joined Burisma several weeks after Devon Archer joined the board to help recruit investors to the company. Archer, 39, was a college roommate of Christopher Heinz, a stepson of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry...

Both Biden and Archer are employees of Rosemont Seneca Partners, a U.S. investment company. It is affiliated with Rosemont Capital, a private-equity firm that Archer and [Christopher] Heinz co-founded...

In a statement on the Burisma [Ukrainian gas company's] website, Biden said the gas company “can be a strong driver of a strong economy in Ukraine. As a new member of the Board, I believe that my assistance in consulting the company... will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.”

Archer issued a similar statement.

Both Vice President Biden and Kerry have publicly expressed support of Ukrainians who demonstrated for closer ties with Europe and drove Yanukovych and his government, which had sought closer relations with Russia, from power.

Yanukovych’s ouster has led to violence between pro-Russia separatist rebels and the country’s military.

In the turmoil, gas has become a focus of the tensions between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine gets most of its gas from the Russian government’s majority-owned gas company, Gazprom. Kiev accuses the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin of unfairly increasing gas prices to punish Kiev for establishing closer relations with the European Union.

Vice President Biden went to Kiev last month to offer U.S. expertise to help expand Ukraine’s domestic gas production...

You get the picture?

In August of 2008, a similar question of conflict of interest arose pertaining to Biden's ties to MBNA.

CBS reported at the time:

[Hunter Biden], a son of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was paid an undisclosed amount of money as a consultant by MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware, during the years the senator supported legislation that was promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups. [The legislation made it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection.]

MBNA employees have poured more than $200,000 into Biden's Senate campaigns over the past two decades, making donors working for the credit card company the senator's largest source of campaign money.

There is more to report on the Biden/MBNA connection, but why bother, you get the picture.....

French FM sharply criticizes Obama, says Assad still using chemical weapons; U.N. Mediator on Syria Quits

The Telegraph-UK reported last month that the Syrian regime was still using chemical weapons against civilians. "Chemical tests... now confirm that chlorine gas and ammonia have been used..., and that the toxins came from barrels that were dropped from helicopters, the Telegraph-UK reported. "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."

Likewise, on Tuesday,  both the French Foreign Minister and Human Rights Watch also said that Syria has been using chemical weapons [chlorine gas] against civilians. The French Foreign Minister faulted President Obama for failing to heed his own "red line" pledge in dealing with Syria's chemical weapons attacks.

In a related development, UN peace envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi announced his resignation at UN headquarters on Tuesday. Reuters reported last month that Mr. Brahimi was planning on tendering his resignation "largely out of frustration at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's plans to hold an election in June." Reuters added that, "the vote is widely seen as a bid by Assad to defy widespread opposition and extend his grip on power." Another Western diplomat told Reuters: "Brahimi had indicated that he would resign if the election went ahead, so we're expecting his resignation."

From the AFP:

The United Nations peace envoy for Syria threw in the towel on Tuesday after failing to start a meaningful dialogue, as France accused Damascus of continuing to use chemical weapons.

In a double blow to the already frozen peace process, Lakhdar Brahimi announced his resignation at UN headquarters as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius spoke in Washington.

Fabius accused Bashar al-Assad's regime of resorting to banned chemical weapons 14 times in recent months, despite having agreed to hand-over its deadly stockpile to international monitors.

"How much more destruction is there going to be before Syria becomes again the Syria we have known?" Brahimi asked as he confirmed weeks of rumors that he was stepping down.

Brahimi, who took over from the previous UN peace envoy in August 2012, said it was "very sad that I leave this position and leave Syria behind in such a bad state."...

Separately, [French Foreign Minister Laurent] Fabius told reporters in Washington that the 14 reported incidents showed that "in recent weeks, new, smaller quantities of chemical arms have been used, mainly chlorine."...

Fabius complained that President Barack Obama had failed to carry out threatened strikes against the Syrian regime last year after a sarin gas attack near Damascus killed hundreds of people.

"We regret it because we think it would have changed lots of things ... but what is done is done, and we're not going to rewrite history," Fabius told reporters...

Human Rights Watch said Tuesday it has evidence that "strongly suggests" the Syrian government used chlorine gas on three towns in mid-April.

It documented attacks on the towns of Kafr Zita in central Hama on April 11 and 18, Al-Temana in Idlib on April 13 and 18 and Telmans also in Idlib province on April 21. All are areas under rebel control.

"Evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government helicopters dropped barrel bombs embedded with cylinders of chlorine gas on three towns in northern Syria in mid-April 2014," Human Rights Watch said.

And the Syrian people can thank President Obama for that; he is clearly a strong and compassionate leader, and a man of his word.........