New Year's Eve and a fast day? Tonight starts Tenth of Tevet (Hebrew: עשרה בטבת, Asarah BeTevet), the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tevet, is a fast day in Judaism. It is one of the minor fasts observed from before dawn to nightfall. The fast commemorates the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylonia—an event that began on that date and ultimately culminated in the destruction of Solomon's Temple (the First Temple) and the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah (today southern Israel).
Why commemorate the beginning of the siege? it is a reminder to look at the root causes and beginnings of disaster. The result 9th of Av in 586 BCE, 18 months later, was the destruction of the Temple. We face many grave challenges today : jihadism on the upswing, a US President desperate to make a deal with the devil (Iran), many Jews so naive as to think deals can be made with the devil of Abbas and Hamas, and much more. In our revelry tonight for the New Year, let us also somberly reflect on REAL history. The ancient Iraqi's besieged Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. Isis is now on Israel's north and south borders, Iranian soldiers were photographed on the Lebanese border this week, barbarian terrorist Abbas, director of daily war crimes, has the chutzpah to try and join International criminal court to falsely accuse Israel of war crimes, and on and on. The messiah is not yet here. Stand up against evil and for the good.
For FUTURE Postings, I'm combining blogs to http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/ see you there Record deficits, record poverty, record lies, record scandals, record incompetence, allows jihad to flourish, betrays US allies
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Economic Expert: Obama’s ‘Economic Recovery’ is Built on Lies
Economic Expert: Obama’s ‘Economic Recovery’ is Built on Lies
Over and over again, the compliant lapdog media repeats that the economy has been fixed and that we can thank Barack Obama and his leadership for this terrific feat.
However, even modest scrutiny of our economic state will reveal that we are a nation resting atop a house of cards as we remain insurmountably in debt to the tune of $18 trillion and are saddled with a bitterly divided political system that squabbles over a meager proposed cut of 2.4% to expected government spending.
When we add in the fact that this administration’s only go-to answer to economic issues is to punish the job creators in a misguided attempt to meld economics with a warped understanding of social justice, it’s easy to see that even if Obama and his minions can tout inflated and manipulated stats, such illusions are not reflective of actual economic reality.
ShadowStats.com econometrician John Williams agrees and notes that Obama’s economic “accomplishment” is based on doctored data.
WND.com’s Jerome Corsi summarizes Williams’ analysis:
He argues that the full economic recovery indicated by the real GDP numbers reported last week by BEA is “a statistical illusion created by using too-low a rate of inflation in deflating (removing inflation effects) from the GDP series.”Williams further argues “no other major economic series has shown a parallel pattern of official full economic recovery and meaningful expansion beyond, consistent with GDP reporting.”Williams’ analysis of retail sales, again adjusted to remove an artificially low rate of inflation, shows “a pattern of plunge and stagnation and renewed downturn, consistent with patterns seen in series such as consumer indicators like real median household income, the consumer confidence measures and in the unemployment and most housing statistics.”WND previously has reported that real unemployment in the U.S., measured by traditional definitions that include an estimate of those forced to drop out of the labor force because jobs are lacking and those seeking full-time employment who are forced to take part-time employment is closer to 23 percent, rather than the 5.8 percent the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in November, confirming Donald Trump’s accusation that Obama’s jobless numbers are “phony.”Williams estimates that adjusted for inflation, orders for durable goods declined by 0.62 percent in November, versus a revised decline of 0.12 percent in October, and a revised September monthly decline of 0.68 percent.He calculates that sales of existing homes showed a seasonally adjusted decline of 6.1 percent in November, with 9 percent of November sales of existing homes in distress (6 percent foreclosures, plus 3 percent short sales).Contrast this with the narrative the White House suggested in a press release on Dec. 18, when the administration stated: “President Obama took office in the depths of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Six years later, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, and the decisive actions he took early on – to bring the economy back from the brink, to save the auto industry, and to build a new foundation for middle-class growth – we’ve made real progress.”In a press briefing two days earlier, White House press counsel Josh Earnest delivered a similar tone, stating: “Now, 2014 was a milestone for economic progress in the United States, but there’s much more work to do.”He continued: “This year, America’s businesses added jobs at the fastest rate since the 1990s. The most interesting statistic I’ve seen on this is that we’ve now had 10 consecutive months of more than 200,000 job created in the private sector in each of those months.”The statements portray Obama as having engineered an economic miracle that is historic in nature.“That is the longest streak in nearly 20 years,” Earnest continued. “And while many of these good, full-time, middle-class jobs and wages have begun to rise, it’s still too hard for many middle-class families to get ahead.”Also, despite the Obama administration’s war on coal and refusal to support the Keystone pipeline, the White House claims credit for declining gas prices.“And while gas prices have fallen as we’ve produced more oil, and the growth of health care costs has slowed as the Affordable Care Act has been implemented, it’s still too hard for many middle-class families to make ends meet,” Earnest emphasized.Williams is of another opinion.“U.S. economic activity is turning down anew, despite overstated growth in recent GDP reporting. The headline contraction in first-quarter 2014 GDP was the reality; the headline second-quarter GDP boom and continued strong headline GDP growth in third-quarter 2014 were not,” Williams concludes. “The more recent data appear to have been spiked, at best, by overly optimistic assumptions on the part of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). At worst, the bloated growth estimates reflect heavy political massaging.”Williams anticipated current BEA revised estimates of third quarter growth will “suffer heavy downside revisions” in the July 30, 2015, benchmark revision with early indications predicting an outright contraction in fourth quarter 2014 GDP.“Future, constructive Federal Reserve behavior – purportedly moving towards normal monetary conditions in the currently unfolding, perfect economic environment – is pre-conditioned by a continued flow of ‘happy’ economic news,” Williams writes.“Suggestions that all is right again with the world are nonsense,” he continues. “The 2008 Panic never has been resolved, and the Fed soon will find that it has no easy escape from its quantitative easing.”
The miraculous “Obama recovery” appears to be simply another example of the Obama Administration’s mantra of “repeat the lie until it becomes the truth.”
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
stopped pretending
Obama stops faking Israel policy
The Obama administration is not the first to stick itself into an Israeli election process. During the Clinton administration, when for a short period there was a direct election of the prime minster, the White House was happy to send over its most savvy and experienced campaign team, including pollster Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Bob Shrum, to help Labor Party leader Ehud Barak oust Benjamin Netanyahu in his re-election bid in 1999. The White House had also favored Shimon Peres in his race against Netanyahu in 1996, which Netanyahu narrowly won.
Demonstrating that Democratic U.S. presidents continue to want Netanyahu out of the way, some of the same campaign team from 15 years back, including Stanley Greenberg, are again descending on Israel to help the current Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog try to oust the prime minister in the March 17 elections. Of course, American campaign operatives are free agents, and have not been ordered to report for duty in Israel by either President Barack Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry. But the campaign messaging as to the favored party from the American perspective is nonetheless pretty clear. There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans by and large supported Israel's elected leader, whether that leader was from the Right or the Left, and kept out of Israel's elections. It was generally a bit tougher for American administrations if Israel's leader was from the Right, but today any pretense of equal treatment is long past. The same splits and partisanship which now divide American politics have carried over to how American officials try to participate in and influence Israeli elections.
Both Obama and Netanyahu came into office in 2009. They had vastly different agendas and expectations of each other. Netanyahu wanted America to focus first on stopping Iran's nuclear program, which it considered an existential threat. Obama wanted Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians and stop settlement construction. In essence, Obama wanted to bring American policy more into line with that of the Europeans and the "international community," which was always ready to blame the absence of peace on Israel, and in particular on Israeli building in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Obama also wanted something much bigger than a halt to Iran's nuclear program -- but rather a new American and Western relationship with Iran, creating a strategic partnership with the mullahs, much as say Henry Kissinger accomplished with China in the early 1970s.
Obama argued that progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would make it easier for the United States to build a coalition of nations ready to work on addressing Iran's nuclear program. And to achieve that progress in the peace process, first Israel had to stop settlement activity of any kind in the "occupied Palestinian lands." The Obama team, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made clear that they were opposed to settlement activity even in areas that President George W. Bush, in his letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004, had effectively conceded would remain part of Israel if a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians were reached.
The Obama policy on Iran has been worse than advertised. Every sanctions bill adopted by Congress was weakened after Democrats responded to White House pressure, with generous waivers granted to the administration. Unbeknownst to members of Congress, except a few who were participating in the subterfuge such as then-Senator Kerry, the Americans were busy chasing after Iran to achieve that desired thaw in relations. Of course, the multiyear negotiating process between the P5+1 and Iran has not been pretty to watch, as Kerry and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman have continued a steady drip, drip, drip of weakening resolve in what seems like a desperate effort to sign a deal of some kind, even one that preserves Iran's nuclear capability and processed uranium, ignores Iran's missile program, backtracks on inspections, relaxes sanctions, and at best extends the time frame for a nuclear breakout by a few months. The Obama administration's desire to make old enemies friends has now been extended to Cuba. The policy of reducing ties with long-term allies such as Israel can be seen as either deliberate policy or a necessary consequence, given the other overriding policy objectives such as warming relations with former foes like Iran.
This weekend, the Obama administration let slip exactly how it was working to help its favored candidates in the Knesset elections. After meeting with and talking to candidates from the left-of-center Israeli parties, Kerry indicated that consideration of a new Palestinian Authority-drafted resolution by the Security Council, demanding a complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all territories beyond the Green Line by the end of 2017, was a bad idea, since it might harden attitudes among Israeli voters, and lead to more support for Israel's hard-line parties, including Netanyahu's Likud.
"The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel's liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tzipi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Naftali Bennett, an implacable foe of a Palestinian state and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home [Habayit Hayehudi] party. Netanyahu is also fiercely opposed to the Palestinians effort to secure Security Council backing for its statehood drive."
Of course, there may be more going on here than the article reveals. The United States did not want to be forced into using its veto at the Security Council to block the resolution, if the PA were able to secure nine votes, an effort that at the moment seems to be falling short. The Obama administration has been reluctant to line up on the opposite side of its European and Third World allies on issues relating to Israel at the U.N., and there is little doubt that the Europeans in particular are anxious at this point to turn the screws on Israel, backed by increasingly strident anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic voices in their own countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Having a resolution blocked by the United States at the Security Council would at least give the Europeans an E for effort in their home countries on the one foreign policy issue on which the Continent seems united -- bashing Israel. But delaying consideration of the resolution has a more important purpose, the Americans are telling the Europeans -- preventing Netanyahu from making political hay from it.
In essence, Kerry is using the advice he is receiving from Peres and Livni to persuade the Europeans to join with him in pressuring the Palestinians not to push the resolution until after the Israeli election, when, hint, hint, a new government friendlier to their demands may be in place in Israel. The other implied promise or threat depending on the outcome of the Israeli elections, is that the United States might not use its veto after the elections to block the same or a similar resolution in the Security Council, especially if the Israeli right-wing parties are returned to power.
There has been a stridency in Obama's approach to governing the last few months -- running roughshod over the will of Congress on immigration reform, environmental issues, and Cuba policy to name a few, and seemingly America's voters as well, based on the rejection of his policies in the midterm results. It would be foolish to believe that trouble does not lay ahead for Israel whatever its election outcome, given Obama's minimally concealed contempt for the Jewish state, and in particular its current prime minister. Recent Israeli polling suggests that with almost three months to go (a long time in Israeli politics), the odds favor another government led by a coalition of right-wing parties, probably joined by religious parties.
Israelis elect Israel's leaders, not the White House. The Obama administration, however, seems to be betting that Israelis may be concerned enough about deteriorating relations with Washington, not to give Obama an excuse to be even nastier his last two years -- we will slap you around less if you retire Netanyahu. My guess is that message will not sell. Israelis, like most Americans, have taken the measure of the man who leads America, and increasingly people in both countries don't trust him. The belief is he will slap around anyone who gets in his way, and appeasement is always a bad strategy with bullies.
The Obama administration is not the first to stick itself into an Israeli election process. During the Clinton administration, when for a short period there was a direct election of the prime minster, the White House was happy to send over its most savvy and experienced campaign team, including pollster Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Bob Shrum, to help Labor Party leader Ehud Barak oust Benjamin Netanyahu in his re-election bid in 1999. The White House had also favored Shimon Peres in his race against Netanyahu in 1996, which Netanyahu narrowly won.
Demonstrating that Democratic U.S. presidents continue to want Netanyahu out of the way, some of the same campaign team from 15 years back, including Stanley Greenberg, are again descending on Israel to help the current Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog try to oust the prime minister in the March 17 elections. Of course, American campaign operatives are free agents, and have not been ordered to report for duty in Israel by either President Barack Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry. But the campaign messaging as to the favored party from the American perspective is nonetheless pretty clear. There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans by and large supported Israel's elected leader, whether that leader was from the Right or the Left, and kept out of Israel's elections. It was generally a bit tougher for American administrations if Israel's leader was from the Right, but today any pretense of equal treatment is long past. The same splits and partisanship which now divide American politics have carried over to how American officials try to participate in and influence Israeli elections.
Both Obama and Netanyahu came into office in 2009. They had vastly different agendas and expectations of each other. Netanyahu wanted America to focus first on stopping Iran's nuclear program, which it considered an existential threat. Obama wanted Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians and stop settlement construction. In essence, Obama wanted to bring American policy more into line with that of the Europeans and the "international community," which was always ready to blame the absence of peace on Israel, and in particular on Israeli building in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Obama also wanted something much bigger than a halt to Iran's nuclear program -- but rather a new American and Western relationship with Iran, creating a strategic partnership with the mullahs, much as say Henry Kissinger accomplished with China in the early 1970s.
Obama argued that progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would make it easier for the United States to build a coalition of nations ready to work on addressing Iran's nuclear program. And to achieve that progress in the peace process, first Israel had to stop settlement activity of any kind in the "occupied Palestinian lands." The Obama team, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made clear that they were opposed to settlement activity even in areas that President George W. Bush, in his letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004, had effectively conceded would remain part of Israel if a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians were reached.
The Obama policy on Iran has been worse than advertised. Every sanctions bill adopted by Congress was weakened after Democrats responded to White House pressure, with generous waivers granted to the administration. Unbeknownst to members of Congress, except a few who were participating in the subterfuge such as then-Senator Kerry, the Americans were busy chasing after Iran to achieve that desired thaw in relations. Of course, the multiyear negotiating process between the P5+1 and Iran has not been pretty to watch, as Kerry and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman have continued a steady drip, drip, drip of weakening resolve in what seems like a desperate effort to sign a deal of some kind, even one that preserves Iran's nuclear capability and processed uranium, ignores Iran's missile program, backtracks on inspections, relaxes sanctions, and at best extends the time frame for a nuclear breakout by a few months. The Obama administration's desire to make old enemies friends has now been extended to Cuba. The policy of reducing ties with long-term allies such as Israel can be seen as either deliberate policy or a necessary consequence, given the other overriding policy objectives such as warming relations with former foes like Iran.
This weekend, the Obama administration let slip exactly how it was working to help its favored candidates in the Knesset elections. After meeting with and talking to candidates from the left-of-center Israeli parties, Kerry indicated that consideration of a new Palestinian Authority-drafted resolution by the Security Council, demanding a complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all territories beyond the Green Line by the end of 2017, was a bad idea, since it might harden attitudes among Israeli voters, and lead to more support for Israel's hard-line parties, including Netanyahu's Likud.
"The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel's liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tzipi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Naftali Bennett, an implacable foe of a Palestinian state and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home [Habayit Hayehudi] party. Netanyahu is also fiercely opposed to the Palestinians effort to secure Security Council backing for its statehood drive."
Of course, there may be more going on here than the article reveals. The United States did not want to be forced into using its veto at the Security Council to block the resolution, if the PA were able to secure nine votes, an effort that at the moment seems to be falling short. The Obama administration has been reluctant to line up on the opposite side of its European and Third World allies on issues relating to Israel at the U.N., and there is little doubt that the Europeans in particular are anxious at this point to turn the screws on Israel, backed by increasingly strident anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic voices in their own countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Having a resolution blocked by the United States at the Security Council would at least give the Europeans an E for effort in their home countries on the one foreign policy issue on which the Continent seems united -- bashing Israel. But delaying consideration of the resolution has a more important purpose, the Americans are telling the Europeans -- preventing Netanyahu from making political hay from it.
In essence, Kerry is using the advice he is receiving from Peres and Livni to persuade the Europeans to join with him in pressuring the Palestinians not to push the resolution until after the Israeli election, when, hint, hint, a new government friendlier to their demands may be in place in Israel. The other implied promise or threat depending on the outcome of the Israeli elections, is that the United States might not use its veto after the elections to block the same or a similar resolution in the Security Council, especially if the Israeli right-wing parties are returned to power.
There has been a stridency in Obama's approach to governing the last few months -- running roughshod over the will of Congress on immigration reform, environmental issues, and Cuba policy to name a few, and seemingly America's voters as well, based on the rejection of his policies in the midterm results. It would be foolish to believe that trouble does not lay ahead for Israel whatever its election outcome, given Obama's minimally concealed contempt for the Jewish state, and in particular its current prime minister. Recent Israeli polling suggests that with almost three months to go (a long time in Israeli politics), the odds favor another government led by a coalition of right-wing parties, probably joined by religious parties.
Israelis elect Israel's leaders, not the White House. The Obama administration, however, seems to be betting that Israelis may be concerned enough about deteriorating relations with Washington, not to give Obama an excuse to be even nastier his last two years -- we will slap you around less if you retire Netanyahu. My guess is that message will not sell. Israelis, like most Americans, have taken the measure of the man who leads America, and increasingly people in both countries don't trust him. The belief is he will slap around anyone who gets in his way, and appeasement is always a bad strategy with bullies.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Jews Intimidated on Campus
Jews Intimidated on Campus
Thursday, 18 Dec 2014 11:15 AM Ben Stein
Jewish students are routinely shouted down and threatened when they try to speak up for Israel. Their meeting places are under warning at danger. The administration says it’s concerned but does nothing. There are demonstrations and anti-Israel signs all over campuses nationwide. Arabs and progressives try to ostracize Israel and make their endowments sell investments in Israel, writes Ben Stein in The American Spectator. "
Thanks Obama and all you idiots who voted for this guy twice, for helping make American campuses increasingly unsafe for Jews and soon the whole USA will go the way of France.
"
by, Gil Guignat and Dr. Paul L. Williams | The Examiner
President Barack Hussein Obama has invited 80,000 Muslims to immigrate next year to the United States. He is doing this by executive order. Additionally, he has promised to bring a minimum of 100,000 additional muslims per year, for the next 5 years.
In a determination letter to Congress, Mr. Obama says that the increase in Muslim immigrants “is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”
Thursday, 18 Dec 2014 11:15 AM Ben Stein
Jewish students are routinely shouted down and threatened when they try to speak up for Israel. Their meeting places are under warning at danger. The administration says it’s concerned but does nothing. There are demonstrations and anti-Israel signs all over campuses nationwide. Arabs and progressives try to ostracize Israel and make their endowments sell investments in Israel, writes Ben Stein in The American Spectator. "
Thanks Obama and all you idiots who voted for this guy twice, for helping make American campuses increasingly unsafe for Jews and soon the whole USA will go the way of France.
"
by, Gil Guignat and Dr. Paul L. Williams | The Examiner
President Barack Hussein Obama has invited 80,000 Muslims to immigrate next year to the United States. He is doing this by executive order. Additionally, he has promised to bring a minimum of 100,000 additional muslims per year, for the next 5 years.
In a determination letter to Congress, Mr. Obama says that the increase in Muslim immigrants “is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Obama disaster
US is a mess, as bad as the Chicago Bears: Obama is a laughingstock around the world, beheadings everywhere, violent islamic jihad on the march and obama says ISIS has no relation to Islam, China surpassed us as world #1 economy, Russia has moved into Ukraine, Iran is completely undeterred in nuclear weapon pursuit since Obama took gas off sanctions, Obama will double all previous US debt, we have RECORD low participation in labor market, RECORD POVERTY< record food stamps, stock market artificially inflated because of federal reserve printing gobs of money which will lead to inflation, middle class is steadily losing ground, 2/3 Americans opposed to obamacare and Obama's amnesty illegal declaration, only 16% Israelis trust Obama, we have scandal after scandal: VA, IRS, AP, Secret Service, massive cuts to our military and mass firings of our top commanders, Obama has Al Sharpton to White House 60 times and Sharpton incites race riots and protests. This is what liberalism gives us.
Guess who is lighting the menorah in the White Houses
srael president ever. They work in coordination with and lends support to many of the most active anti-Israel NGOs, and focuses most of its resources on Palestinian issues, while failing to address many of the complex issues involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if its complaints were not unbalanced or exaggerated, RHR applies Berkeley standards to a Middle Eastern nation which has essentially been at war since its founding. It amplifies and focuses attention on human-rights issues which — in context — are not issues. By doing so it provides real ammunition to Israel’s enemies
Obama says Isis has nothing to do with Islam
Obama says Isis has nothing to do with Islam. It is understandable he would lie like this since his father is Muslim and his brother runs Muslim brotherhood terrorist group in Kenya. Would he say Muhammed has nothing to do with islam? Isis is drawing policy right out of Muhammed's life.
SLICING OFF OUR HEADS: The Koran tells how Mohammed made a peace treaty with the Jews of a certain city in the Arabian peninsula. But within two years, he found a pretext to suddenly break the treaty, attack his surprised victims, and then behead all the Jewish men in the public square. Mohammed's tactic is held up by the Muslim Arabs as a hallowed model. It is enshrined in Muslim legal practice which has it that Muslims are not obligated for long to honor peace treaties with non Muslims -- infidels. It is not the 800 Jews of Medina [slaughtered by Mohammed in 627 AD], but millions of infidels slaughtered in subsequent centuries that should make us pause and reflect. Not only that. Those who defend Mohammed should reflect on the fate of the millions of infidels for whose heads the mujahid's knife is being sharpened in all Islamic countries right at this moment. and as for sex with children:When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha's father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said "I am your brother"; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr's reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR I7:18]....So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consummated. And Muhammad was 53 then [SAHIH BUKHARI 5:236,7:64,7:65,7:88] .
SLICING OFF OUR HEADS: The Koran tells how Mohammed made a peace treaty with the Jews of a certain city in the Arabian peninsula. But within two years, he found a pretext to suddenly break the treaty, attack his surprised victims, and then behead all the Jewish men in the public square. Mohammed's tactic is held up by the Muslim Arabs as a hallowed model. It is enshrined in Muslim legal practice which has it that Muslims are not obligated for long to honor peace treaties with non Muslims -- infidels. It is not the 800 Jews of Medina [slaughtered by Mohammed in 627 AD], but millions of infidels slaughtered in subsequent centuries that should make us pause and reflect. Not only that. Those who defend Mohammed should reflect on the fate of the millions of infidels for whose heads the mujahid's knife is being sharpened in all Islamic countries right at this moment. and as for sex with children:When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha's father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said "I am your brother"; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr's reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR I7:18]....So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consummated. And Muhammad was 53 then [SAHIH BUKHARI 5:236,7:64,7:65,7:88] .
Saturday, December 13, 2014
.Former Israel Ambassador to US finally able to tell the truth about Obama
.Former Israel Ambassador to US finally able to tell the truth about Obama
Undiplomatic Talk From Michael Oren
'This administration has a worldview that is not in accord with any Israeli government.'
Wed, 12/10/2014
Gary Rosenblatt
During his four-year tenure as Israel’s ambassador to the United States, marked by an often-stormy relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama, Michael Oren was the consummate diplomat. He was dignified, thoughtful, articulate, knowledgeable and tactful.
But those days are over.
Fourteen months after returning to Israel, where he is lecturing at the IDC Herzliya College and writing a book about his experiences in Washington, the 59-year-old Oren is speaking out about his deep concerns over Israel’s standing in the world, and particularly its relationship with its most important ally, the U.S.
In a dialogue at The Plaza here last week at the annual Scholar-Statesman dinner of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he and another former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Tel Aviv University President Itamar Rabinovich, were the honorees, Oren said that “this administration [in Washington] has a worldview that is not in accord with any Israeli government,” not just the current one. Describing the Obama administration as “ideological” on the Mideast, with the president’s 2009 outreach-to-the-Arab-world Cairo speech as its source, Oren said the White House views east Jerusalem communities like Gilo, for example, as not necessarily part of the Jewish state, a position he said no Israeli government would accept.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
The lie that obamacare is a success
ObamaCare: failure at any price
By: John Hayward | October 22nd, 2014 at 05:37 PM | 11
RESIZE: AAA
Share on Facebook 1K 1K SHARES
It was rather refreshing to see the very brief return of cost/benefit analysis to the American Left during the Ebola crisis. You had to listen carefully to hear it, but the muddled arguments against imposing a travel ban on the West African outbreak nations boiled down to an assertion that the safety benefits would not be worth the costs, which would be paid primarily by inconvenienced West Africans, whose prosperity America was held vaguely responsible for, because slavery.
It’s quite reasonable to measure cost against benefits, but the Left hates doing it, because many of their ideas look less attractive – if not downright absurd – when such calculations are made. Much of modern politics can be thought of as the art of promising benefits without regard to cost. If necessary, cost gets straitjacketed and locked in a closet until the political discussion is over. The related subject of exactly who covers the cost, and how that group overlaps with who gets the benefits, is considered extremely rude to bring up. Politicians are very generous with other peoples’ money. No one is more gregarious than the liberal politician who has never, in his life, been forced to make a business payroll, but is eager to burden those who do with minimum wage increases.
All sorts of ideas are palatable to the American electorate only because they don’t think about the cost. (The belief that the Evil Rich can cover those costs out of loose change from their treasure vaults is another way of ignoring cost, because people who think that way are convinced looting the rich is a “soft” crime – they’re not really injured by confiscatory taxation, because they have plenty of money to spare.) For example, no Big Government enthusiast likes to talk about the way rising fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles kill people, but it is undeniably true – the fatality rates for traffic accidents rise as cars get smaller and lighter. It’s a trade-off, and such standards have benefits, ranging from consumer savings on gas to environmental benefits, but nobody wants to think about those benefits in terms of human lives lost.
ObamaCare is a fantastic example of how abject failure can be portrayed as success, provided the costs are completely ignored. In this case, people who complain about their personal costs – rising insurance premiums, lost access to doctors – are actively muzzled. It’s infuriating, but also undeniably amusing, to watch ObamaCare apologists claim that if you just ignore everyone injured by the program, and count only those who seem pleased with it, it looks like it’s working. It’s hard to imagine an enterprise that wouldn’t look good under that kind of analysis.
But even the sole metric of “success” ObamaCare defenders can point to, the number of people who gained insurance coverage under the program, does not hold up well under scrutiny, and it falls apart like wet tissue paper when measured against the cost of the program. Edmund Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski took a look at those enrollment figures at the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, using numbers for the second quarter of 2014 that captured enrollments delayed by what they delicately describe as “numerous problems experienced by the exchanges,” and concluded that the vast majority of “ObamaCare enrollments” are actually Medicaid enrollments. Furthermore, the net number of people who gained new insurance under the Affordable Care Act is far smaller than the numbers bandied about by the Administration and its apologists, because most of them are people who found out the hard way that President Obama was lying when he promised they could keep their old insurance plans:
Our analysis of the data is reported in more detail in our latest paper, but our key findings are that in the first half of 2014:
Enrollment in individual-market plans (both on and off the exchanges) increased by 6,254,564 individuals.
Enrollment in private employer-sponsored group plans declined by 3,788,978 individuals.
In the states implementing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, enrollment in Medicaid grew by 5,716,977 individuals.
In the states not implementing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, enrollment in Medicaid grew by 355,674 individuals.
Applying a little arithmetic to those four key data points yields the following observations:
The drop in employment-based coverage offset 61 percent of the gains in individual-market coverage, for a net increase in private-sector coverage of 2,465,586 individuals.
Total Medicaid enrollment increased by 6,072,651 individuals, with 94 percent of that growth occurring in the states that adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
The total, net increase in health insurance coverage (private-market and Medicaid combined) during the first half of 2014 was 8,538,237 individuals, but 71 percent of that coverage gain was attributable to Obamacare expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults
Thus, while most of the attention this year focused on the new health insurance exchanges, the data indicate that a significant share of exchange enrollments were likely the result of a substitution effect—meaning that most of those who enrolled in new coverage through the exchanges already had coverage through an individual-market or employer-group plan.
Given that increased enrollment in Medicaid accounted for 71 percent of the net growth in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014, the inescapable conclusion is that, at least when it comes to covering the uninsured, Obamacare so far is mainly a simple expansion of Medicaid.
Which is something the American people should have been given an honest opportunity to debate, but Obama and his allies were too busy blowing smoke about a brilliant technocratic reinvention of the insurance industry, under the wise guiding hand of the omni-competent State… okay, stop laughing, that’s what these people really believe, and they made you pay for it.
They made you pay a lot for it. That train wreck of an ObamaCare website ended up costing us nearly $2 billion altogether. (Wouldn’t you have preferred the Department of Health and Human Services to spend that money on oh, say, Ebola preparedness instead?) The cost of Medicaid rose from $265 billion to $305 billion in just the first year of fully-functional ObamaCare, and it’s projected to double over the coming decade. Subsidies for non-Medicaid enrollees were $17 billion in ObamaCare Year One, but they’re projected by the Congressional Budget Office to soar 800 percent within ten years. “The combined $707 billion that the federal government will spend on Medicaid and ObamaCare subsidies in 2024 is roughly equal to the $716 billion the CBO estimates the government will spend on national defense that year,” CNS News tartly observes.
Meanwhile, insurance premiums are rising by so much that the numbers had to be kept secret from the American people until after the midterm elections, and insurance deductibles have gotten so out of hand under ObamaCare that many of its “enrollees” are afraid to use their “benefits.” Many of them end up doing exactly what ObamaCare was supposed to prevent people from doing: marching into hospital emergency rooms to get “free” care. The huge constellation of new taxes swirling around ObamaCare will drain more money from the private sector in various ways; the widely hated medical-device tax has been credited with killing over 30,000 jobs all by itself, and is so toxic that a couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton spent a full five minutes stammering nonsense to avoid answering a question about whether she would support repealing it.
That all adds up to a huge amount of money confiscated, and wealth destroyed, in the service of ObamaCare. Arguments will rage forever about how much health care spending would have risen without the program, and how many peripheral costs should be figured into the total bill. (Let us postulate that if you’re one of the people who lost his job because of the medical device tax, you probably take a dimmer view of ObamaCare than a previously uninsured person with pre-existing conditions who now has a health-insurance policy, 80 percent of which is paid for by other people.)
But look at those enrollment numbers from the Daily Signal again. 6.3 million people bought policies, but 3.8 million lost the insurance they used to have – a net increase of a paltry 2.5 million paying customers. How can anyone argue that the immense cost to the American people as a whole – to say nothing of the burden placed on countless People Who Work Hard and Play By the Rules who got sandbagged by insurance cancellations and premium hikes – justifies such a modest achievement? And that’s without getting into customer satisfaction, which isn’t great for ObamaCare, even among the previously uninsured. Medicaid is not well-loved by its beneficiaries, either, which is something we should have discussed at length before shoveling another 6 million people into a program with chronic fiscal problems.
Forget about the cost, and ObamaCare, like many other government programs, looks a lot better.. which is why you should never, ever forget about the cost.
By: John Hayward | October 22nd, 2014 at 05:37 PM | 11
RESIZE: AAA
Share on Facebook 1K 1K SHARES
It was rather refreshing to see the very brief return of cost/benefit analysis to the American Left during the Ebola crisis. You had to listen carefully to hear it, but the muddled arguments against imposing a travel ban on the West African outbreak nations boiled down to an assertion that the safety benefits would not be worth the costs, which would be paid primarily by inconvenienced West Africans, whose prosperity America was held vaguely responsible for, because slavery.
It’s quite reasonable to measure cost against benefits, but the Left hates doing it, because many of their ideas look less attractive – if not downright absurd – when such calculations are made. Much of modern politics can be thought of as the art of promising benefits without regard to cost. If necessary, cost gets straitjacketed and locked in a closet until the political discussion is over. The related subject of exactly who covers the cost, and how that group overlaps with who gets the benefits, is considered extremely rude to bring up. Politicians are very generous with other peoples’ money. No one is more gregarious than the liberal politician who has never, in his life, been forced to make a business payroll, but is eager to burden those who do with minimum wage increases.
All sorts of ideas are palatable to the American electorate only because they don’t think about the cost. (The belief that the Evil Rich can cover those costs out of loose change from their treasure vaults is another way of ignoring cost, because people who think that way are convinced looting the rich is a “soft” crime – they’re not really injured by confiscatory taxation, because they have plenty of money to spare.) For example, no Big Government enthusiast likes to talk about the way rising fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles kill people, but it is undeniably true – the fatality rates for traffic accidents rise as cars get smaller and lighter. It’s a trade-off, and such standards have benefits, ranging from consumer savings on gas to environmental benefits, but nobody wants to think about those benefits in terms of human lives lost.
ObamaCare is a fantastic example of how abject failure can be portrayed as success, provided the costs are completely ignored. In this case, people who complain about their personal costs – rising insurance premiums, lost access to doctors – are actively muzzled. It’s infuriating, but also undeniably amusing, to watch ObamaCare apologists claim that if you just ignore everyone injured by the program, and count only those who seem pleased with it, it looks like it’s working. It’s hard to imagine an enterprise that wouldn’t look good under that kind of analysis.
But even the sole metric of “success” ObamaCare defenders can point to, the number of people who gained insurance coverage under the program, does not hold up well under scrutiny, and it falls apart like wet tissue paper when measured against the cost of the program. Edmund Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski took a look at those enrollment figures at the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, using numbers for the second quarter of 2014 that captured enrollments delayed by what they delicately describe as “numerous problems experienced by the exchanges,” and concluded that the vast majority of “ObamaCare enrollments” are actually Medicaid enrollments. Furthermore, the net number of people who gained new insurance under the Affordable Care Act is far smaller than the numbers bandied about by the Administration and its apologists, because most of them are people who found out the hard way that President Obama was lying when he promised they could keep their old insurance plans:
Our analysis of the data is reported in more detail in our latest paper, but our key findings are that in the first half of 2014:
Enrollment in individual-market plans (both on and off the exchanges) increased by 6,254,564 individuals.
Enrollment in private employer-sponsored group plans declined by 3,788,978 individuals.
In the states implementing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, enrollment in Medicaid grew by 5,716,977 individuals.
In the states not implementing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, enrollment in Medicaid grew by 355,674 individuals.
Applying a little arithmetic to those four key data points yields the following observations:
The drop in employment-based coverage offset 61 percent of the gains in individual-market coverage, for a net increase in private-sector coverage of 2,465,586 individuals.
Total Medicaid enrollment increased by 6,072,651 individuals, with 94 percent of that growth occurring in the states that adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
The total, net increase in health insurance coverage (private-market and Medicaid combined) during the first half of 2014 was 8,538,237 individuals, but 71 percent of that coverage gain was attributable to Obamacare expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults
Thus, while most of the attention this year focused on the new health insurance exchanges, the data indicate that a significant share of exchange enrollments were likely the result of a substitution effect—meaning that most of those who enrolled in new coverage through the exchanges already had coverage through an individual-market or employer-group plan.
Given that increased enrollment in Medicaid accounted for 71 percent of the net growth in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014, the inescapable conclusion is that, at least when it comes to covering the uninsured, Obamacare so far is mainly a simple expansion of Medicaid.
Which is something the American people should have been given an honest opportunity to debate, but Obama and his allies were too busy blowing smoke about a brilliant technocratic reinvention of the insurance industry, under the wise guiding hand of the omni-competent State… okay, stop laughing, that’s what these people really believe, and they made you pay for it.
They made you pay a lot for it. That train wreck of an ObamaCare website ended up costing us nearly $2 billion altogether. (Wouldn’t you have preferred the Department of Health and Human Services to spend that money on oh, say, Ebola preparedness instead?) The cost of Medicaid rose from $265 billion to $305 billion in just the first year of fully-functional ObamaCare, and it’s projected to double over the coming decade. Subsidies for non-Medicaid enrollees were $17 billion in ObamaCare Year One, but they’re projected by the Congressional Budget Office to soar 800 percent within ten years. “The combined $707 billion that the federal government will spend on Medicaid and ObamaCare subsidies in 2024 is roughly equal to the $716 billion the CBO estimates the government will spend on national defense that year,” CNS News tartly observes.
Meanwhile, insurance premiums are rising by so much that the numbers had to be kept secret from the American people until after the midterm elections, and insurance deductibles have gotten so out of hand under ObamaCare that many of its “enrollees” are afraid to use their “benefits.” Many of them end up doing exactly what ObamaCare was supposed to prevent people from doing: marching into hospital emergency rooms to get “free” care. The huge constellation of new taxes swirling around ObamaCare will drain more money from the private sector in various ways; the widely hated medical-device tax has been credited with killing over 30,000 jobs all by itself, and is so toxic that a couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton spent a full five minutes stammering nonsense to avoid answering a question about whether she would support repealing it.
That all adds up to a huge amount of money confiscated, and wealth destroyed, in the service of ObamaCare. Arguments will rage forever about how much health care spending would have risen without the program, and how many peripheral costs should be figured into the total bill. (Let us postulate that if you’re one of the people who lost his job because of the medical device tax, you probably take a dimmer view of ObamaCare than a previously uninsured person with pre-existing conditions who now has a health-insurance policy, 80 percent of which is paid for by other people.)
But look at those enrollment numbers from the Daily Signal again. 6.3 million people bought policies, but 3.8 million lost the insurance they used to have – a net increase of a paltry 2.5 million paying customers. How can anyone argue that the immense cost to the American people as a whole – to say nothing of the burden placed on countless People Who Work Hard and Play By the Rules who got sandbagged by insurance cancellations and premium hikes – justifies such a modest achievement? And that’s without getting into customer satisfaction, which isn’t great for ObamaCare, even among the previously uninsured. Medicaid is not well-loved by its beneficiaries, either, which is something we should have discussed at length before shoveling another 6 million people into a program with chronic fiscal problems.
Forget about the cost, and ObamaCare, like many other government programs, looks a lot better.. which is why you should never, ever forget about the cost.
why release report on CIA today
In case your wondering of the timing of releasing the report today, on CIA interrogation that will cause the deaths of many of our covert security people around the world and cause our allies to refuse to work with the CIA, it is no coincidence that it was the same day Gruber testified before Congress, the man whose ideas Obama said he based much of Obamacare on, exposed that Obamacare was passed based on may lies they knew were lies, because, as he repeatedly said, we are "stupid"
The Democrats delight in releasing this info that former CIA director will cripple the CIA. Oh goody. Evidently we have no threats from Islamic terrorists. i guess Obama's policy of just killing them with drones, and their families too, and getting zero intelligence, is better? He just does not want any war criminals in custody because we wants to end Gitmo, no matter how many terrorist he releases
The Democrats delight in releasing this info that former CIA director will cripple the CIA. Oh goody. Evidently we have no threats from Islamic terrorists. i guess Obama's policy of just killing them with drones, and their families too, and getting zero intelligence, is better? He just does not want any war criminals in custody because we wants to end Gitmo, no matter how many terrorist he releases
Obama's fuels racist divide
On last night’s “Justice,” Judge Jeanine Pirro blasted President Obama for taking sides based on color, not facts, and stoking the flames "racial hatred, resentment and divisiveness."
"Every young American who loses his life should be the concern of the man in the White House. But why is it that we only hear from him when death involves a person of color?" Judge Jeanine asked.
She pointed out that Obama wasn't elected by just one group, but all Americans, Republican and Democrat, black and white.
"Why don't you act like you're the president of all of us?"
Watch her fiery opening statement above and read the full transcript below.
'Doesn't Integrity Matter?' Megyn Slams '180' on Immigration Action
O'Reilly: Obama's Action 'Set off Constitutional Brawl,' Will Hurt Nation
Tonight, Americans, once hopeful that after electing the first African American president, the issue of race would be a thing of the past, are left with Barack Obama, who stokes the flames of racial hatred, resentment and divisiveness.
A man who instead of healing our nation, instead of overcoming any racial divide prefers to take sides, based not on facts but on color, to prejudge situations based not on sworn testimony and evidence but on conjecture and a one size fits all resentment, to peddle the narrative of a national problem between law enforcement and young people of color.
Every young American who loses his life should be the concern of the man in the White House. But why is it that we only hear from him when death involves a person of color?
But James Foley, an American who never committed a crime and was beheaded, is nothing more than a blip in the president's golf game.
Mr. President, why do you send White House officials to Brown's funeral but no one to James Foley’s memorial service?
I don't remember you injecting yourself in the death of a young white American or sending in the attorney general on a local crime before the justice system can act - as you did with Eric Holder, sending him to Ferguson?
Why not speak about young African Americans killed by other African Americans? Black-on-black crime? The kind of crime for which your home town of Chicago is so infamous?
Instead, you see racism everywhere.
Mr. President, you say we need trust between police and the African American community, police need to be sensitive to minority concerns.
How about you teach respect for those who put their lives on the line every day, for those who protect us, for those who are the one line of defense against an otherwise barbaric and chaotic society?
How about you teach that when a police officer says "move along" or "put your hands behind your back,” you do it!
And teach that you don't call cops derogatory names or reach into a police cruiser to grab a cop's gun.
But then again, you're the one who thinks cops are stupid.
Mr. President, you demand respect. Why not demand respect for police. When they issue an order, it's not a suggestion, an invitation, a mediation or a request.
As anarchy reigned and protesters looted stores and burned buildings of hard-working Americans - many African American - where were you?
Or do you believe that those crimes are justification for a perceived injustice? Simple collateral damage - like Occupy Wall Street. That tax paying Americans need to just suffer through and then pay for?
But no, you fan the flames of resentment, trumpeting your own investigation that you could have completed by now, only prolonging the anger. Suggesting, yes, folks, this is yet another white injustice, and I’m going to reverse it with a federal civil rights investigation, when you know there isn't a smidgeon - your word - of evidence to support the claim.
Weren't you going to reverse the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case with a federal investigation? What happened? Nothing! Absolutely nothing!
Have you no respect for the law? For our system of justice? If you don't like the law, change it. Hell, you do it all the time without Congress!
And you bring in the greatest charlatan of them all, a man who makes a living inciting racial hatred, a tax cheat and a liar, who claimed an African American girl was raped by a white man - stirring the pot of racial hatred that resulted in a defamation judgment against him - to sit with you at the citadel of power in the White House to discuss how law enforcement should be more sensitive.
Now, there are times when injustices occur, but the system also works.
I know. According to that same Al Sharpton , as DA, I convicted the first white cop of shooting an African American in the history of New York.
That jury, not affected by centuries of racism - but the facts, pure and simple.
Mr. President, if you're so concerned about racism, why don't you do something about it?
It is no secret black crime is disproportionately high. Why not focus on poverty, on lack of education, on drugs, on guns, on broken families
Bill Clinton moved Americans from welfare to "workfare." You turn back the hands of time.
With you as president, things aren't so great for African Americans. The poverty rate among African Americans has gone up since you took office. Fewer African Americans own homes. The number of African Americans on food stamps rose from 6 million to almost 11 million since you took office.
Mr. President, you seem to forget, you weren't just elected by one group. You were elected by all of us: Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites.
Why don't you act like you're the president of all of us?
"Every young American who loses his life should be the concern of the man in the White House. But why is it that we only hear from him when death involves a person of color?" Judge Jeanine asked.
She pointed out that Obama wasn't elected by just one group, but all Americans, Republican and Democrat, black and white.
"Why don't you act like you're the president of all of us?"
Watch her fiery opening statement above and read the full transcript below.
'Doesn't Integrity Matter?' Megyn Slams '180' on Immigration Action
O'Reilly: Obama's Action 'Set off Constitutional Brawl,' Will Hurt Nation
Tonight, Americans, once hopeful that after electing the first African American president, the issue of race would be a thing of the past, are left with Barack Obama, who stokes the flames of racial hatred, resentment and divisiveness.
A man who instead of healing our nation, instead of overcoming any racial divide prefers to take sides, based not on facts but on color, to prejudge situations based not on sworn testimony and evidence but on conjecture and a one size fits all resentment, to peddle the narrative of a national problem between law enforcement and young people of color.
Every young American who loses his life should be the concern of the man in the White House. But why is it that we only hear from him when death involves a person of color?
But James Foley, an American who never committed a crime and was beheaded, is nothing more than a blip in the president's golf game.
Mr. President, why do you send White House officials to Brown's funeral but no one to James Foley’s memorial service?
I don't remember you injecting yourself in the death of a young white American or sending in the attorney general on a local crime before the justice system can act - as you did with Eric Holder, sending him to Ferguson?
Why not speak about young African Americans killed by other African Americans? Black-on-black crime? The kind of crime for which your home town of Chicago is so infamous?
Instead, you see racism everywhere.
Mr. President, you say we need trust between police and the African American community, police need to be sensitive to minority concerns.
How about you teach respect for those who put their lives on the line every day, for those who protect us, for those who are the one line of defense against an otherwise barbaric and chaotic society?
How about you teach that when a police officer says "move along" or "put your hands behind your back,” you do it!
And teach that you don't call cops derogatory names or reach into a police cruiser to grab a cop's gun.
But then again, you're the one who thinks cops are stupid.
Mr. President, you demand respect. Why not demand respect for police. When they issue an order, it's not a suggestion, an invitation, a mediation or a request.
As anarchy reigned and protesters looted stores and burned buildings of hard-working Americans - many African American - where were you?
Or do you believe that those crimes are justification for a perceived injustice? Simple collateral damage - like Occupy Wall Street. That tax paying Americans need to just suffer through and then pay for?
But no, you fan the flames of resentment, trumpeting your own investigation that you could have completed by now, only prolonging the anger. Suggesting, yes, folks, this is yet another white injustice, and I’m going to reverse it with a federal civil rights investigation, when you know there isn't a smidgeon - your word - of evidence to support the claim.
Weren't you going to reverse the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case with a federal investigation? What happened? Nothing! Absolutely nothing!
Have you no respect for the law? For our system of justice? If you don't like the law, change it. Hell, you do it all the time without Congress!
And you bring in the greatest charlatan of them all, a man who makes a living inciting racial hatred, a tax cheat and a liar, who claimed an African American girl was raped by a white man - stirring the pot of racial hatred that resulted in a defamation judgment against him - to sit with you at the citadel of power in the White House to discuss how law enforcement should be more sensitive.
Now, there are times when injustices occur, but the system also works.
I know. According to that same Al Sharpton , as DA, I convicted the first white cop of shooting an African American in the history of New York.
That jury, not affected by centuries of racism - but the facts, pure and simple.
Mr. President, if you're so concerned about racism, why don't you do something about it?
It is no secret black crime is disproportionately high. Why not focus on poverty, on lack of education, on drugs, on guns, on broken families
Bill Clinton moved Americans from welfare to "workfare." You turn back the hands of time.
With you as president, things aren't so great for African Americans. The poverty rate among African Americans has gone up since you took office. Fewer African Americans own homes. The number of African Americans on food stamps rose from 6 million to almost 11 million since you took office.
Mr. President, you seem to forget, you weren't just elected by one group. You were elected by all of us: Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites.
Why don't you act like you're the president of all of us?
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Our debt hits $18 trillion. Obama hypocritical liar
On July 3, 2008 -- the day before Independence Day -- Barack Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was irresponsible and "unpatriotic."
Obama: "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."
Obama: "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."
Obama race baiter
Here’s Why Our Dear Leader Race-Baits…
...he keeps it going for that rainy day.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-dear-leader-race-baits/#qZE5AcrPOUyCYIu5.99
I’ve seen many talking heads wonder aloud on Fox News and other networks why President Obama brings in Al Sharpton as his advisor on race. The President met in secret with Sharpton and the Ferguson protest leaders last week after the Michael Brown verdict. Our Dear Leader routinely injects himself into court cases that should be left to the states or the local authorities.
Everyone remembers his comments like, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin.” Or, “the police acted stupidly in arresting a black man climbing into the window of his own home.” Or, directing Eric Holder to proceed with federal double jeopardy investigations on civil rights grounds whenever the White House doesn’t like the verdict of a grand jury investigation on whether to indict a white cop.
This is race-baiting in its plainest form. It is reveling in victimhood. It is behavior beneath the President of the United States.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
How Obama and the left use phony racism to undermine Israel
How Obama and the left use phony racism to undermine Israel
Richard Baehr
Israel, Ferguson and the global Left
Richard Baehr
Israel, Ferguson and the global Left
It may not seem as if Ferguson, Missouri has much to do with Israel, but some of the activists protesting the events in that Missouri city seem to also have Israel on their mind. What happened in Ferguson and why does Israel factor into the picture?
Ferguson was a case of a white policeman shooting and killing a black civilian. There are between 300 and 400 cases of police killings in the United States each year (there are a smaller number of police killed in the line of duty). A majority of the victims of police shootings are not African-American. Some of the African-American victims (10-20 percent each year) are killed by African-American police. There are maybe 100 or so cases a year of white policemen killing blacks, and the great majority of these cases are non-controversial. The half dozen or so that are controversial are now becoming the biggest news stories of the day and the year.
In an average year, about 16,000 Americans are murdered, so police killings are maybe two percent of that number. Over half of all murder victims are African-Americans, and almost all of them are killed by other African-Americans. Overall, African-Americans commit murder in the United States at a rate seven times their share of the population. While 16,000 is a big number, the U.S. murder rate has sharply declined the last 20 years, by about 40 percent. In New York City, the scene of the latest race-related controversy over a police killing (in this case from a chokehold,) the murder rate has dropped 85 percent.
One might think that the far larger murder toll that does not involve police would be a much bigger story than the few controversial cases of white cops killing black civilians. That this is not the case reflects the role of today's media, which feeds off of the white cops killing black civilian stories almost as much as they love hurricanes and tornadoes and airplane disasters. Stories that enable the 24- hour cable news networks to fill their time reporting updates for days and weeks is the news that is fit to broadcast. America is an extremely polarized nation at this point on issues involving race, but also on broader political questions, like immigration, and Obamacare chief among them, and conflict is good for news departments. And this, unfortunately is where Israel has begun to filter into the frame.
In every one of the recent controversial cases involving a black victim, whether Trayvon Martin, who was shot by a community watchman, the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson and now the latest killing of Eric Garner in New York, the protestors now include members of the local black communities, blacks from other communities, students (some of whom are white), the professional crowd of agitators/anarchists, race hustlers, and always some anti-Israel demonstrators. In several cities where demonstrations followed the St. Louis County grand jury decision not to indict Ferguson policeman Darren Wilson, there were prominent signs comparing the occupation of black communities by racist police with Israel's racist occupation of Palestine.
Paul Miller has provided a brief history of how African-American leaders fought attempts to link their struggle with anti-Israel forces decades back, but seem far less uncomfortable with this linkage today.
"Nearly 40 years after African-American leaders fought against anti-Semitism and the co-opting of the civil rights movement, the same hatred toward Israel and Jews has reared its ugly head in Ferguson -- seeking the same opportunity to exploit the struggles of African-Americans to shape public opinion against Israel.
But this time around, African-American leaders are silent about the abuse of their cause. In a few cases, such as the social media pages of Detroit Lions running back Reggie Bush, we have witnessed the embrace of Israel detractors. Bush, who forfeited his 2005 Heisman Trophy after allegedly receiving improper benefits while playing at University of Southern California, posted a photo of a protestor holding a sign that read: "The Palestinian people know what mean [sic] to be shot while unarmed because of your ethnicity #ferguson #justice."
The white cop versus black man on the street divide is an opportunity for the anti-Israel crowd in the United States (consisting of Muslims but also many others on the Left) to solidify their position among minority groups and make their cause one and the same with the grievances held by other groups.
The anti-Israel crowd is now very much at home among the Left. A University of California professor, Judith Butler, helped create a conference on "pink-washing" Israel to decry those who praise Israel for its progressive practices and laws regarding gays. Israel can never be up to any good, so long as it is a country identified by the Left as practicing oppression toward one of the Left's favored victim groups, the Palestinians. Butler argued that supporting the Palestinians has become a key component of the global Left's agenda, so trashing Israel trumped any false narrative perpetrated by Zionist defenders about progressive Israeli policies toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
This week a chapter of the United Auto Workers (!) union, with members who are mostly teaching assistants at nine University of California branches, will hold a BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) vote, thereby introducing the BDS movement to unions for the first time in America. The resolution seems to endorse the Palestinian right of return, suggesting Israel can no longer exist as a majority Jewish state in any form or within any boundaries.
The role of academics and students in all of the "take it to the streets" protest movements is a particularly dangerous one for Israel's defenders in the United States. From Occupy Wall Street to any scene taken over by race hustlers such as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, campus groups are always well represented. There was already a surge in anti-Israel activism at colleges and universities even before the Gaza war this past summer, with Students for Justice in Palestine pushing BDS measures among student bodies, and academic organizations (e.g., the American Studies Association) doing the same. So far, with the exception of Hampshire College, no university has succumbed to any student/professor sentiment to actually take any such action. But this year there are more SJP chapters, more BDS resolutions, more of these resolutions that are passing, and more threats and violence against pro-Israel students and groups. Over time, more universities will bend, thereby legitimizing the effort.
One might argue that the four most significant issues that draw people to the streets these days, or make the college Left angry are Wall Street, Israel, the police, and global warming. Minority students at many campuses have signed up with the BDS movement, which of course requires the anti-Israel crowd to provide support on the streets of Ferguson, or in any other predictable hotbed of street agitation -- Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle.
There is, I think, a not-so-silent partner in all this. U.S. President Barack Obama was a community organizer, a student of Saul Alinsky, before he started his legal and political career. While he might stand out for being more professionally dressed among those who march and scream, and he has been careful not to endorse any violence by demonstrators, Obama has clearly been encouraging those who are angry to get out there and make themselves heard, knowing full well what happens when these angry groups take to the streets. When the president spoke the night the decision of the Ferguson grand jury was announced, on a split TV screen one could also watch the black-owned businesses on the main streets of Ferguson being looted, set ablaze and destroyed. In the aftermath of this lawlessness, the president and his chief spokesperson on racial issues and the law, Attorney General Eric Holder, made no bones about their unhappiness with the grand jury action, but said almost nothing beyond offering some perfunctory statements about the violence. In this, their behavior modeled that of weak-willed American university presidents who have increasingly turned a blind eye to violence and threats against Jewish or pro-Israel students on campus. It is only a matter of time before life for pro-Israel students is about as "safe" as being visibly Jewish on the streets of pretty much any Western European city.
There is a saying that everything good or bad starts in California, including its universities, but at this point in time, it is pretty much only noxious developments that are sweeping through academia, to be mainstreamed into the rest of American society. Hostility to Israel is one of these rapidly moving trends. Just as it is becoming more difficult to defend the police when media sympathies are all on the other side, the same is happening with defenders of Israel. The goal of the BDS movement is to make life very difficult for Israel's supporters, especially on campus and among America's growing minority population. America's demographic shifts are threatening to the historical pro-Israel consensus in America, not only because of high levels of Muslim immigration, but because other rapidly growing minority groups, as well as minority groups already here, are increasingly joining up with the anti-Israel movement. And when minority groups are on one side of an issue, you know where the major media will be to make that message resonate.
want stop sanction Israel for building homes
Obama most anti Israel, pro iran nuk President ever.
Obama Reportedly Considering Sanctions Against Israel
Posted: 05 Dec 2014 09:52 AM PST
(John Hinderaker)
Russia is gobbling up much of Ukraine. China is putting growing pressure on its neighbors in East Asia. ISIS is chopping the heads off Americans. Syria’s government continues to slaughter thousands of its citizens. Iran is working feverishly on a bomb and running circles around our negotiators. Boko Haram is wreaking havoc in Nigeria. Hamas is raining rockets and missiles down on its neighbors. And the Obama administration reportedly is mulling the imposition of sanctions on…Israel. Why? Because Jews are building homes in Jerusalem:
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem.
The classified meetings were reportedly held several weeks ago and included officials from both the State Department and White House, according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, which first reported on the meetings.
The possibility of sanctioning Israel for its ongoing construction sends a signal that the Obama administration is willing to go further in its denunciations of Israel than any previous White House.
At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran.
Obama Reportedly Considering Sanctions Against Israel
Posted: 05 Dec 2014 09:52 AM PST
(John Hinderaker)
Russia is gobbling up much of Ukraine. China is putting growing pressure on its neighbors in East Asia. ISIS is chopping the heads off Americans. Syria’s government continues to slaughter thousands of its citizens. Iran is working feverishly on a bomb and running circles around our negotiators. Boko Haram is wreaking havoc in Nigeria. Hamas is raining rockets and missiles down on its neighbors. And the Obama administration reportedly is mulling the imposition of sanctions on…Israel. Why? Because Jews are building homes in Jerusalem:
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem.
The classified meetings were reportedly held several weeks ago and included officials from both the State Department and White House, according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, which first reported on the meetings.
The possibility of sanctioning Israel for its ongoing construction sends a signal that the Obama administration is willing to go further in its denunciations of Israel than any previous White House.
At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Obama on ruining US economy, aiding terror, impeachable offenses, lying, hurting Israel
US economy suffers because of Obama
-Adjusted for inflation, incomes declined around the turn of the century and never quite
regained their previous peak under President George W. Bush
- Since Mr.
Obama took office, the median income rate has continued to decline, according
to Census Bureau data
-Dozens of unbelievable LIES http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
-Dozens of unbelievable LIES http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
-Middle class suffers from Obama For a
vast number of middle-class Americans wages have remained the same for 40 years
(the median full-time male worker earned
$50,033 in 2013, about what he
earned in 1973, adjusted for inflation, $49,678), and a lot of that backsliding
occurred during the Great Recession and in the
five years since then.
-Another
measure that hasn’t improved under Mr. Obama’s presidency is the share of the
population that participates in the
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the
lowest in 36 years; many have just dropped out of the workforce. EMPLOYMENT: Because of
Obama’s policies since he became President,: 11,472,000 Americans have left
the work force. “Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even
though the population since then has grown by 31 million
-We live in a weird new normal when 6 percent
unemployment is something to brag about
-Studying presidents by their job creation record,
also places Mr. Obama near the bottom of the pack. Since the presidency of Harry
Truman, only three presidents have seen the level of employment
grow by a smaller percent than Mr. Obama.
-Enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
commonly known as food stamps. Even
though the recession officially ended in mid-2009, the number of people collecting
food stamps continued to climb until recent months, and participation in the program
remains far higher than any other point over the past 30 years…
-the poverty rate has climbed since Mr. Obama
took office. Through 2012, the most recent year available, the number of people
in poverty had risen by 2.9 million.
-STOCKS: U.S. Federal Reserve, the semi-secret private organization that largely
runs the U.S. monetary policy, is pumping billions of dollars daily into the
currency market, investors are confident, and the markets boom
-Our nation lost its AAA
credit rating because Obama is spending so much money.
-Not only was Cash for
Clunkers a wasteful government program that: “cost $1.4 million for every job
it created and did little to reduce carbon emissions,”destroying the “clunkers”
helped dramatically jack up the cost of used cars for the rest of the country.
-Through 2013, the Obama
Administration had imposed: new regulations on businesses
that cost 46 billion dollars a year.
-RECORD DEBT: When he was
running for office, Obama called Bush “unpatriotic” for adding so much to the
debt and promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Yet,
the national debt is up: 7 trillion dollars: since Obama became
President. That’s more debt than all U.S. Presidents from George Washington
through Bill Clinton combined and after 8 years Obama will have doubled all
debt accumulated by presidents 1-43.
-SCANDAL: Obama’s
administration gave gunsthat were used to murder hundreds of Mexicans and
border agent Brian Terry. The Obama Administration has refused to cooperate
with the investigation or hold anyone accountable for that illegal behavior.
-Chrony Handouts: Obama’s
campaign contributors at Solyndra were handed 535 million dollars of taxpayer
money that the Obama Administration knew they would never be able to pay back
before they gave it to them.
-SCANDAL When thewere asked
to provide emails requested by Congress as part of an investigation into their
illegal activities, they’ve claimed over and over again to have lost the
information because of “hard drive crashes.” Given that it’s quite easy to back
up a hard drive and that they’re required by law to retain that information, it
seems likely that they’re habitually destroying evidence to hide their illegal
activities. The IRS targeted Obama’s political enemies including Christian
groups, pro-Israel groups, and most prominently, Tea Party groups. The Obama
Administration has refused to cooperate with the investigation or hold anyone
accountable for the illegal behavior. Numerous donors to Mitt Romney were
audited by the IRS after giving him large contributions.
-SCANDAL: Veterans received poor health care and even died because of the
incompetence and cover-ups of Obama’s VA.
-OBAMACARE: Even Barney
Frank admits Barack Obama: shamelessly lied to the
American people to get Obamacare passed: — and lie, he did. He promised that
Americans could keep their insurance plans, that they could keep their doctors,
and that Obamacare would save the average family $2500 per year. Not only were
all of those lies, Obama knew they were lies when he made those promises. Barack Obama has broken the law
repeatedly: by
making at least 23 unilateral changes to Obamacare.Obama has been illegally
trying to force Christians to pay for abortifacients via Obamacare. Obamacare has been a disaster that cost
millions their insurance and sent health care costs spiraling into the
stratosphere. Obama is taking 700 billion dollars out of Medicare
to put into Obamacare. The website portion of Obamacare, healthcare.gov, was a
non-functional disaster for months when it rolled out and Obama claimed he was
completely unaware that there was anything wrong with it.
-INCREASED RACIAL TENSION:
Instead of calming people down, Obama helped to turn Americans against each
other racially be inserting himself into the Trayvon Martin case. Obama created
so much racial animosity by attacking the police when they had done nothing
wrong in the Henry Louis Gates case that he had to have a ridiculous “beer
summit” to try to undo the damage. The Department of Justice failed to pursue a
voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panthers because they were
black and liberal. Former DOJ official: J. Christian Adams quit over
the case: and: “accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil
rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims.”
-George W. Bush quit playing
golf in 2003 because he didn’t want the mother of some fallen soldier to see
the Commander-in-Chief out playing golf. He also said he thought playing golf
during a war sent the wrong signal to the American people. Through June of
2014, Obama was up to 200 rounds and is on pace to play twice as much in his
second term as his first term.
-Obama chose tax cheat Tim
Geithner to be his Secretary of the Treasury and then has had the audacity to
spend his whole presidency pushing for higher taxes.
-After promising to unite
America when he was running for office in 2008, Obama has been the most
hyper-partisan President in decades.
-The Department of Justice
has worked overtime to help increase voter fraud by fighting against voter ID.
This is despite the fact that you need ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, fly on a
plane or even to use Obamacare.
-Russia annexed Crimea while
Obama did nothing of consequence to discourage it from invading. That’s not a
surprise for a President who is fond of throwing out “red lines” that don’t
mean anything.
- Southern Border and
illegal aliens Barack Obama unilaterally implemented the DREAM Act that
Congress didn’t pass and illegally handed out work permits to illegal aliens.
Obama bypassed Congress and simply “legalize” millions more of illegal
immigrants even though it’s illegal and unconstitutional and it hurts the
American people and will further encourage even more illegal aliens to surge
across the border. The fence on our southern border was supposed to be
completed by 2009. The Obama Administration has made it clear that it doesn’t
intend to finish it during his presidency. Barack Obama is deliberately
creating a crisis on the southern border by refusing to deport illegal aliens
crossing into our country.For all practical purposes, Barack Obama has already
unilaterally implemented amnesty in America because “at
least: 99.92% of illegal immigrants
and visa overstays: without known crimes on their records”: aren’t being deported.
Islamic Violent terrorism flourishes under Obama
Obama helps actively or
through neglect a massive spread of Islamic jihad under his watch-see details
below. Terrorism expert
summarizes this: “Steve Emerson Terrorism expert
“we have an administration that's in bed with these radical
Islamic groups who pretend to be moderate or civil rights groups that have basically
curtailed the ability of the FBI, ICE agents, to monitor, do investigations, or
even prosecutors. Prosecutors now have to petition the Department of Justice to
use the word "jihad" in indictments. This shows you the extent to
which this administration has neutered the whole campaign to stop jihadism and
basically interfere, Monica, with the ability of FBI agents to do their
job...,the FBI, city and state law enforcement and now the border patrol with
essentially an open border with god knows what kind of terrorists and Islamists
are coming over the southern border, how they have really been hamstrung by
regulations and political correctness restricting their ability to monitor the
Islamic communities and the border...this administration has essentially
embraced and legitimized the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the godfather and
parent of all Sunni terrorist groups, including Hamas, including Islamic Jihad,
and Al Qaeda. And for the administration to make a distinction between Al Qaeda
and the Muslim Brotherhood is simply murderous. And that's what they've done. “
NEWEST: Obama covering up domestic jihad murder again.
Flourishing of Jihad 2009 until now under Obama, much with his direct aid.You decide whether its purposeful on his part, or incompetence, or horrible consequences of wrongheaded world view.
1.Libya: he helped push out Quaddafi, and now Libya in hands of various jihad groups. Egypt is very worried about them.
2.Iraq: pulled out after war was won opening way for ISIS
3.Syria: drew red lines and then ignored them when breached and now Isis controls half
4.Hamas: secret talks with this terrorist group while they toss missiles daily at Israel for 6 months and continued to fund PA even after the have unity government with Hamas. Secret talks with them.
5. Iran: weakened sanctions consistently and now extends talks while they move forward tried to overthrow Mubarak and support Moslem Brotherhood, gave them 1.5 billion and sophisticated weapons
6. Turkey Obama’s favorite foreign leader calls Israelis Nazis It is also no surprise that Obama would name this vicious Jew-hater as his closest friend among world leaders. “Erdogan calls Israel more barbaric than Hitler,” Times of Israel, July 19, 2014
7. He backed Morsi in Egypt, head of Moslem Brotherhood who said Jews are descended from pigs, gave them 1.5 billion and f16s.
8. Iron Dome vs Terrorist funding Follow the money: each round of Iron Dome funding, Obama has tried to cut substantially. Congress overruled him.http://freebeacon.com/national-security/house-restores-funding-for-israeli-missile-defense/
His response? $47 more for Hamas to rebuild,
$500 million for Syrian rebels (which will go straight to Isis, $11 billion
arms deal with Qatar
9. Opens southern borders, allowing terrorists cross into US easilyhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/346591/southern-border-our-welcome-mat-terrorists
10. http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/09/06/sleep-tight-america-obama-lifts-ban-barring-libyans-from-us-flight-schools-and-nuclear-studies/
11. Lost whereabouts of 6000 “students” of foreign nationality who never showed up for class
12. The unilateral release of five senior Taliban back to the enemy while the enemy is still fighting us.
13. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/14/allen-west-barack-hussein-obama-is-an-islamist/
14. Does this bother anyone else? Obama had a meeting with an "interesting" cleric -- on the anniversary of 9-11 no less.http://allenbwest.com/2014/09/connect-dots-obama-met-cleric-supports-hezbollah-911/
15. His administration hired senior terrorists to work for US government. One example http://www.debbieschlussel.com/19764/sleeping-w-the-enemy-obama-hires-muslim-extremist-to-tsa-senior-policy-advisor/
16. Had Bagdadai, Isis leader in custody in 2009 but released him
17. Severly limits FBI ability to monitor Islamic extremists in USAhttp://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/NSA-SNOOPING-OFF-LIMITS-082613.htm#.VBWzbxYjwyc
18. They've lifted all restrictions on Muslim Brotherhood visits to the United States and now restricting entry of Israelis to UShttp://www.truthrevolt.org/news/us-state-dept-denying-israelis-entry-visas-record-level”
19. He and Hillary lied and lied about 9-11 Alquida attack in benghazzi being caused by Youtube video, to continue their lying narrative that alquida was vanquished to try and assist his 2012 election,
20. Fort Hood shooter business card says “soldier of Allah” and he shouts alla akbar before he kills 13 fellow soldiers, Obama calls it ‘workplace violence”.
21. Obama demands scrubbing word jihad from documents on terror and demands CIA Director scrub word Islamist before the word “terrorists” from Benghazi talking points
22. Fight vs Isis: Steve Emerson: “our allies that the administration praises – Turkey and Qatar – are sabotaging our campaign against ISIS while the President has basically angered good allies lie Egypt, which really could be participating in a very meaningful way because it is significantly and ideologically against the Muslim Brotherhood which [ISIS] has in its origins.."
23. Refuses to acknowledge obvious Islamic link to terrorhttp://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/report-barack-obamas-outraged-pro-islam-tantrum-during-military-briefing
24. http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/09/27/obama-praises-muslim-cleric-who-backed-fatwa-on-killing-of-u-s-soldiers/
25. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/report-barack-obamas-outraged-pro-islam-tantrum-during-military-briefing
9. Opens southern borders, allowing terrorists cross into US easilyhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/346591/southern-border-our-welcome-mat-terrorists
10. http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/09/06/sleep-tight-america-obama-lifts-ban-barring-libyans-from-us-flight-schools-and-nuclear-studies/
11. Lost whereabouts of 6000 “students” of foreign nationality who never showed up for class
12. The unilateral release of five senior Taliban back to the enemy while the enemy is still fighting us.
13. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/14/allen-west-barack-hussein-obama-is-an-islamist/
14. Does this bother anyone else? Obama had a meeting with an "interesting" cleric -- on the anniversary of 9-11 no less.http://allenbwest.com/2014/09/connect-dots-obama-met-cleric-supports-hezbollah-911/
15. His administration hired senior terrorists to work for US government. One example http://www.debbieschlussel.com/19764/sleeping-w-the-enemy-obama-hires-muslim-extremist-to-tsa-senior-policy-advisor/
16. Had Bagdadai, Isis leader in custody in 2009 but released him
17. Severly limits FBI ability to monitor Islamic extremists in USAhttp://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/NSA-SNOOPING-OFF-LIMITS-082613.htm#.VBWzbxYjwyc
18. They've lifted all restrictions on Muslim Brotherhood visits to the United States and now restricting entry of Israelis to UShttp://www.truthrevolt.org/news/us-state-dept-denying-israelis-entry-visas-record-level”
19. He and Hillary lied and lied about 9-11 Alquida attack in benghazzi being caused by Youtube video, to continue their lying narrative that alquida was vanquished to try and assist his 2012 election,
20. Fort Hood shooter business card says “soldier of Allah” and he shouts alla akbar before he kills 13 fellow soldiers, Obama calls it ‘workplace violence”.
21. Obama demands scrubbing word jihad from documents on terror and demands CIA Director scrub word Islamist before the word “terrorists” from Benghazi talking points
22. Fight vs Isis: Steve Emerson: “our allies that the administration praises – Turkey and Qatar – are sabotaging our campaign against ISIS while the President has basically angered good allies lie Egypt, which really could be participating in a very meaningful way because it is significantly and ideologically against the Muslim Brotherhood which [ISIS] has in its origins.."
23. Refuses to acknowledge obvious Islamic link to terrorhttp://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/report-barack-obamas-outraged-pro-islam-tantrum-during-military-briefing
24. http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/09/27/obama-praises-muslim-cleric-who-backed-fatwa-on-killing-of-u-s-soldiers/
25. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/report-barack-obamas-outraged-pro-islam-tantrum-during-military-briefing
26. Massively increasing Islamic
immigration to USA http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/09/27/us-canada-will-have-largest-increase-in-muslims-over-next-decade/
27. http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-considers-new-softened-nuclear-offer-to-iran/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=29476f1a9c-09_26_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-29476f1a9c-54487625 US considers
new, softened nuclear offer to IranIsrael fumes at compromise which
would allow Tehran to keep half of its centrifuges in exchange for various
checks and balances
29. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/09/fort-hood-shooter-sends-letter-to-pope-francis-espousing-jihad/%20?intcmp=latestnews and Obama calls it workplace violence, not
jihad
30. How many have gotten across http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/10/are-isis-terrorists-sneaking-united-states-through-mexican-border
HIS TOP 20 LIES
Pinocchio Obama’s Top 20 presidential lies
December 18, 2013 by
Photo Source LibertyNews.com
President Barack Obama seems to be setting a record among U.S. presidents. But it’s a record he’d rather keep secret. In this era of ubiquitous cameras capturing everything, Obama may have set a new record for presidential lies.
Turns out Obama is a man of empty pledges and unkept promises. Yet mainstream media sympathizers or accomplices , with their “nothing to report here” treatment of Obama, have largely let him get away with a stream of lies and broken promises by diverting attention to other events, or whitewashing them.
Let’s take a stroll down Obama’s liar lane and see what we find:
- “We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay.” Still open.
- “If we have not gotten our troops out [of Iraq] by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do.” Didn’t happen.
- “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.” Instead, the national debt increased $5 trillion on his watch.
- “As soon as we’re out of this recession, we’ve got to get serious about starting to live within our means.” Huh?
- “We agree on reforms that will reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums.”
- “We’ve got shovel-ready projects all across the country.” Later, Obama admitted his own lie, saying, “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”
- “We reject the use of national security … to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”
- We “will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid.”
- We “will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year.”
- “We are going to work with you to lower your [health care] premiums by $2,500,” and we’ll “do it by the end of my first term as president.”
- “I don’t take a dime of their [lobbyists’] money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.” In fact, Obama granted waivers at will, and more than a dozen lobbyists got jobs in the Obama administration.
- “I pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” But Obama has ignored the constitutional amendment granting powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states.
- “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
- “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” The truth is that the White House proposed an “automatic sequester” on July 12, 2011.
- “I didn’t set a red line [in Syria].” And yet, at a prior news conference, using unscripted language in a statement, he said, “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around.”
- “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” After Obama’s administration gave the company $535 million, Solyndra and its solar panels went belly up.
- To Israel, “We have not only made sure that they [Iran] have to stop adding additional centrifuges, we’ve also said that they’ve got to roll back their 20 percent advanced enrichment … down to zero.” In fact, the deal allows Iran uranium enrichment of 5 percent.
- “Eighty percent of Americans support including higher taxes as part of the [debt ceiling] deal.” However, that same week, a poll by Rasmussen showed only 34 percent supported a tax hike as part of the deal.
- In 2006: “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” But as president, Obama has led the charge each year to increase America’s debt.
- And, let’s not forget PolitiFact’s 2013 Lie Of The Year: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. … You can keep your family doctor.”
Love Obama or detest him, the evidence mounts that millions of Americans don’t know the man who is their presiden
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/18/pinocchio-obamas-top-20-presidential-lies-89096#ixzz3KySmrSPX
Barack Obama's tenure in the White House has been one of the low points in the history of our republic. It may seem melodramatic to compare the damage Barack Obama is doing to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the White House being burned during the war of 1812, but in a sense he's worse than any of those calamities because he's a purely self-inflicted wound. It's not a sneak attack from the Japanese laying us low this time; it's the man our nation willingly chose to lead us not once, but twice.
It's bad enough that Barack Obama is not qualified or competent to handle a job like the presidency, as his performance has proven again and again. Not only has he ridden the economy so deep into the ground that the percentage of Americans not working is at a 36 year high, he's piled on so much debt in such a short period that the destruction of our economy via bankruptcy and/or runaway inflation may be inevitable at this point.
Worse yet, Barack Obama has taken the position that he can rewrite any law he chooses, any way he chooses, for any reason he chooses. In other words, although Obama is not a dictator, he IS CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE DICTATORIAL POWERS for himself. This is extraordinarily dangerous to our republic. As Congressman Trey Gowdy has pointed out, if Obama claims he has the power to change Obamacare or illegal immigration law at his whim, why couldn't he do the same with election law? In other words, Obama has no more right to give illegal aliens work permits or delay congressionally mandated parts of Obamacare than he does to ban handguns by decree or reduce the number of electoral votes in Republican leaning states. That's why it's so incredibly dangerous to allow Obama to be "above the law." It's because the abuses committed tomorrow by Obama or even future Presidents are likely to build upon the ones that we're allowing to go unchallenged today.
The best way to check Barack Obama's power would be to impeach him. Despite the fact that Obama is much more deserving of impeachment than Clinton (perjury) or Andrew Johnson (who violated the Tenure of Office Act), it's unlikely that Obama will be impeached. Unfortunately, even if Republicans take back the Senate in 2014, there won't be enough votes in the upper chamber to get rid of Barack Obama. That's tragic, because for the good of the country, Barack Obama deserves to be driven from office in disgrace.
1) For Illegally Changing Obamacare: It doesn't matter if the Affordable Care Act is called "Obamacare;" Barack Obama doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change the law. Changes to the law have to be made by Congress and then signed into law by the President. Barack Obama has broken the law repeatedly by making at least 23 unilateral changes to the law. Saying, "The Republicans won't work with us," or more disturbingly, "It's politically convenient," is not an excuse for overriding the Constitution of the United States.
2) Engaging In An Illegal War In Libya: While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to declare war. In the modern era, that has just meant an authorization of force from Congress, which Obama did not pursue. Additionally, we've tended to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt when American lives are at stake. However, in Libya, Obama didn't seek the permission of Congress and we had no national security interest in Libya. In other words, Obama's real justification for bombing that country and overthrowing its government was that HE FELT LIKE IT. Using the exact same precedent, the next President could bomb Mexico or Cuba without Congressional authorization. Incidentally, bombing either of those nations would probably make more sense than bombing Libya, although that's not saying much since our intervention there has been a complete disaster.
3) Lying To Sell Obamacare To The American People: When Barack Obama told the public if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan, he was lying. When he told Americans if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor, he knew it wasn't so. When he told Americans Obamacare would cut costs by $2,500 for the average family, he was deliberately misleading the public. For a President of the United States to PERSONALLY spend months telling deliberate falsehoods to the American people in order to convince them to support something as massive as a government takeover of the health care system is beyond the pale. If the willful lies Barack Obama told to sell Obamacare don't merit impeachment, then there are no lies that a President could tell to the American people big enough to merit impeachment.
4) Violating Immigration Law And Illegally Implementing The DREAM ACT: Simply put, Barack Obama has ceased to enforce most immigration law. AsSenator Jeff Sessions has noted, “at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.” In other words, we've already stopped deporting anyone other than SOME hardcore criminals and gang members. Additionally, when the DREAM ACT didn't make it through Congress, Obama simply implemented it ANYWAY. Not only is he explicitly telling illegal aliens they can stay in the United States, he's illegally giving them work permits that he has zero right to offer. Even if Congress is too split on the issue to unify and put a stop to what Obama's doing, that doesn't change the fact that it’s flatly illegal. If this is allowed to stand, tell me ANY LAW on the books that the President is obligated to enforce?
5) Releasing 5 Taliban Terrorists In Exchange For Deserter Bowe Bergdahl: Barack Obama was legally required to alert Congress 30 days before he released terrorists from Gitmo. Not only did he fail to do so, but more seriously he released five high level terrorists who he knew were likely to help kill Americans in the future. One of the terrorists has ALREADY SAID he intends to go back to Afghanistan to fight America. Barack Obama spent a lot of time bragging about getting Bin Laden, but he just released five Bin Ladens back into the world and a lot of Americans who didn't desert their country are likely to die because of it.
Obama most anti Israel president
ever
In the Gaza conflict
1. His FAA blocked flights to Israel
2. Denying visas to Israelis
3. Denyuing mail bound to Israel
4. Holds up armaments so Israel can defend
itself
5. Tried to cut Iron dome 2xfunding but Congress
overruled
6. Tried to get Hamas biggest boosters Qatar to
get agreement allowing Hamas total freedom to rebuild misslies
9.
ObamA
works out $11 billion arms deal to hamAs biggest supporter, Qatar
PLUS 1. His administration continually leaks classified documents that endanger our soldiers and especially our ally Israel
2. Said he wants to bring daylight between Israel and
3 .He bragged about killing Bin Laden, when he hypocritically campaigned against the means they used to find him. That got the actual Seals who killed him so mad they are campaigning against him
4 He hired Muslim brotherhood tied terrorists to be in the USA government
5 Aided Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egypt by reducing helping overthrow Mubarack, their debt and doing military exercises with them, while scaling back our exercises with Israel.
6.He has stalled and delayed and appeased Iran as they march forward to develop nuclear weapons and daily say they want to wipe out Israel
7.He has tried to bully, threaten, intimidated and repeatedly turned his back on Israel ( 49 borders, no building in Jerusalem) and had the word Jerusalem removed from the DNC platform as well as Hamas as terror, and Palestinians no right of return,. He realized that Jerusalem's omission was an error and lied and said he did not know, and when he instructed them to put it back, they did, but over a majority loud chorus of boos from the delegates. DNC convention has featured a large Muslim extremist sub convention.
8. Foolishly encouraged and embraced Arab Spring, which is turning into Arab nightmare. g. He forbade the CIA and FBI from using the words Muslim or Islam when they investigate, making it impossible to do their job and called Fort Hood massacre of a Muslim killing our soldiers shouting allah akbar workplace violence.
9. Obama refused to push for Israel to be included in an international terrorist conference.
10. Makes us more dependent on Arab oil that funds terror
11. Massive spread of Islamic jihad under his watch-
Libya: he helped push out Quaddafi
Iraq-pulled out after war was won opening way for ISIS
Syria: drew red lines and then ignored them when breached
Hamas: secret talks with this terrorist group while they toss missiles daily at Israel for 6 months and continued to fund PA even after the have unity government with Hamas
Iran: weakened sanctions consistently and now extends talks while they move forward
12. His record before he entered high electoral politics in 2004, especially his associations with radical anti-Zionists
13. Obama’s
favorite foreign leader calls Israelis Nazis Erdogan
calls Israel more barbaric than Hitler
It is no surprise, with this violent, hateful rhetoric, that there are violent
protests against Israel in Turkey. It is also no surprise that Obama would name
this vicious Jew-hater as his closest friend among world leaders. “Erdogan
calls Israel more barbaric than Hitler,” Times of Israel, July 19, 2014qw
14. Uses IRS to harass
pro Israel groups
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)