Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2013, 04:46 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Shocking: Brennan Illegal Gun Running to Muslim Brotherhood

Shocking: Brennan Illegal Gun Running to Muslim Brotherhood

Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 04:50 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s Most Dishonest State of the Union Address

Obama’s Most Dishonest State of the Union Address
More lies and class warfare in a rambling speech than even Castro could deliver in a 7-hour harangue.
by Daniel Greenfield

In 1986, at the closing session of the Communist Party shindig in the Karl Marx Theater in Havana, Castro had declared, “Let no one think that what I have here is a lengthy speech; it is the party’s program.” He then went on to speak for 7 hours and 10 minutes.

Obama’s ridiculous 6600-word marathon is also not a lengthy speech; it is the party’s program. The professional flatterers and fawners in the media have long since given up describing the teleprompter-in-chief as a talented speaker. These days Obama gives speeches that not only sound like they were read from a teleprompter, but also written by a teleprompter.

The obscene performance began with a celebration of an economic recovery that exists only in Washington, D.C., which has grown fat on the money that its corrupt political interests have stolen from the rest of the country, and ended by comparing a woman waiting in line to vote for him with a police officer who risked his life to stop a mad gunman.

And in between these two cynical and ugly bookends was a dog’s dinner of out of control spending, class warfare and more bad ideas than even Castro could have come up with in seven hours.

As out of touch with the rest of the country as if he were speaking at the Karl Marx Theater in Havana, Obama claimed that spending was under control, the national debt was no longer a problem, the war in Afghanistan had been won, the economic recovery was here, unemployment was fading and Al Qaeda was a shadow of its former self.

Obama described the “sequester” that he had come up with as “a really bad idea” and blamed it on Congress. He took credit for the oil production that he had fought every step of the way and blamed Hurricane Sandy on global warming; a claim that even few global warming researchers are willing to make.

There were more calls to fix all those broken bridges, which he had somehow been unable to fix for four years, despite running trillion dollar deficits. And finally a proposal to really help the economy take off by legalizing 11 million illegal aliens and thereby doubling the unemployment rate in a single year.
Any Diogenes in the audience taking it upon himself to shout “liar” at every lie would have worn out his vocal chords in a matter of minutes.

Like most bad speakers, Obama has been reduced to relying on props. And since he isn’t allowed to bring a slideshow, the props are his designated victims.

“Gabby Giffords deserves a vote,” Obama insisted toward the end of his Castroesque word jumble of Soak-the-Rich, Ban-the-Guns and Help-the-Poor-by-Taking-Away-their-Jobs. “The families of Newtown deserve a vote.”

They have a vote, of course, but what he really meant is that they should have not only a vote, but a veto on account of their moral supremacy as official victims. Before Havana-on-the-Potomac got started, one of the designated victims from three years ago came forward to say that Obama had betrayed her. But that’s also part of the program. The designated victim of today is Obama’s victim of tomorrow.

The people that Obama promises to help today will be put out of work by him tomorrow.

During the word marathon, victims come in handy as human touches in the middle of Obama’s latest expensive technocratic gimmick, but as soon as Obama gets what he wants, they’re yesterday’s news. And there are always gimmicks; whether it’s trading hubs with 3D printers or an Energy Security Trust.

With the 2013 State of the Union address, Obama finally discovered his inner Castro. Anyone who took part in a drinking game based around class warfare would have been under the table by the 2000th word as Obama dressed up all of his proposals with scarecrows made out of the rich.

Obama announced that he was in favor of Medicare cuts, further cuts than those already made by ObamaCare, but immediately tried to hide them by assuring his audience that the “wealthiest seniors” would have to pay more. Whenever any unpopular proposal was mentioned, the class warfare came out as a cheap distraction. And when the strawman in a top hat and monocle wouldn’t do, the leader of the least transparent administration brought out the euphemisms.

“We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare,” Obama said, “because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital – they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive.” This is one of those ominous things that sound reassuring if you don’t think about them.

Hospitals charge based on expenses. If a hospital isn’t reimbursed for a test, it stops ordering it. If it isn’t reimbursed for a day spent in the hospital, it stops admitting Medicare patients. Quality of care is a euphemism for cutting Medicare expenses by forcing hospitals to reduce admissions through fines and denial of reimbursements. That not only cuts Medicare expenses directly, it also cuts them indirectly by killing senior citizens.

“Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour,” he declared, as if wages could be somehow separated from the rest of the economy without affecting the cost of living and the existence of those low-paying jobs that keep people from joining the masses of the unemployed.

Raising the minimum wage is just another scam. A tasty treat that looks good up front but leads to more lost jobs and a higher cost of living. Tethering minimum wage to the cost of living is like trying to lift yourself up off the ground by your own belt.

“We can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan, and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda,” Obama bragged. The core of Al Qaeda had not been located in Afghanistan at any time during his administration, which made it that much easier to defeat.

While Obama lost the War in Afghanistan to the Taliban and will “complete the mission” by retreating and letting them have the country, Al Qaeda has spread across North Africa and came within a hair of taking over Mali.

North Korea had detonated a nuclear weapon and Obama warned its regime that successfully testing nuclear weapons “will only isolate them further”… except to countries like Iran and Pakistan looking to buy their nuclear technology.

Obama carefully tiptoed away from his disaster in Egypt, issued some more toothless warnings to Iran and Syria, and then having completed the demonstration of his international impotence, turned to the inevitable assault on the Bill of Rights.

And then finally the leader who has refused to be constrained by the Constitution, by any law or limitation, by the rights of others or by the laws of economics, by the truth or by any sense of shame, declared that, “this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others.”

The man who had rejected all obligations and bankrupted the United States for generations to come, who had cut healthcare for seniors and destroyed the economic future of the young, concluded his speech with the same cynicism and dishonesty with which he had begun it.

“Our conscience, a communist spirit, and a revolutionary vocation and will, were, are and will continue to be a 10,000 times more powerful than money,” Castro had declared at the end of his speech in 1986. In less than 15 years, history proved him thoroughly wrong. It will take even less time than that for history to disprove Hussein.

AP Fact Check: Obama Overreaches in State of the Union Speech

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama did some cherry-picking Tuesday night in defense of his record on jobs and laid out a conditional path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that may be less onerous than he made it sound.

A look at some of the claims in his State of the Union speech, a glance at the Republican counterargument and how they fit with the facts:

OBAMA: “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs.”

THE FACTS: That’s in the ballpark, as far as it goes. But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest. In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.

Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.

And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is close to a wash. And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.

OBAMA: “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.”

THE FACTS: Not so fast.

That’s expected to happen in 12 more years.

Under a deal the Obama administration reached with automakers in 2011, vehicles will have a corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, twice the 27 miles per gallon, on average, that cars and trucks get today. Automobile manufacturers won’t start making changes to achieve the new fuel economy standards until model year 2017. Not all cars will double their gas mileage, since the standard is based on an average of a manufacturers’ fleet.

OBAMA: “Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship – a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.”

THE FACTS: The seemingly stern admonition that illegal immigrants must go to the back of the line, often heard from the president, doesn’t appear to have much practical effect except in the most obvious sense. Everyone who joins a line, whether for a movie, a coffee or citizenship, starts at the back of that particular line. It’s not clear he is saying anything more than that illegal immigrants won’t get to cut in line for citizenship once they’ve obtained provisional legal status.

Like those living abroad who have applied to come to the U.S. legally, illegal immigrants who qualify for Obama’s proposed path to citizenship will surely face long waits to be processed. But during that time, they are already in the U.S. and will get to stay, work and travel in the country under their new status as provisional immigrants, while those outside the U.S. simply have to wait.

Sending illegal immigrants to the “back of the line” is something of a distinction without a difference for some legal immigrants who dutifully followed all the rules before coming to the United States.

For instance, some legal immigrants who are in the U.S. on an employer-sponsored visa can’t easily change jobs, or in some cases take a promotion, without jeopardizing their place in line to get a green card. In other cases, would-be legal immigrants in other countries wait for years to be able to settle in the U.S.

Obama is using “back of the line” somewhat figuratively, because there are multiple lines depending on the applicant’s relationship with family already in the U.S. or with an employer. Generally, a foreign-born spouse of a U.S. citizen or someone with needed skills and a job offer will be accepted more quickly than many others.

But even as a figurative point, his assertion may cloak the fact that people who came to the U.S. illegally and win provisional status have the great advantage over applicants abroad of already being where they all want to go.

OBAMA: “I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

THE FACTS: Obama failed to get a global warming bill through Congress when both Houses were controlled by Democrats in 2010. With Republicans in control of the House, the chances of a bill to limit the gases blamed for global warming and to create a market for businesses to trade pollution credits are close to zero. The Obama administration has already acted to control greenhouse gases through existing law. It has boosted fuel-efficiency standards and proposed rules to control heat-trapping emissions from new power plants. And while there are still other ways to address climate change without Congress, it’s questionable regulation alone can achieve the reductions needed to start curbing global warming.

FLORIDA SEN. MARCO RUBIO, in the Republican response: “The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending $1 trillion dollar more than it takes in every year. That’s why we need a balanced-budget amendment.”

THE FACTS: That statement may reflect the math behind recent debt, but it doesn’t get directly to the cause – the worst recession since the Depression and its aftereffects. The deficit is not only caused by spending, but by reduced tax revenues. And during the recession, revenues from both individual and corporate taxes fell markedly.

The steep increases in debt and the measures that should be taken to ease the burden are central to the debate in Washington. But there is no serious move afoot to amend the Constitution to prohibit deficit spending.

The ability to take on debt has been used by governments worldwide and through U.S. history to shelter people from the ravages of a down economy, wage war and achieve many other ends. An effort to amend the Constitution for any purpose faces daunting odds; this would be no exception. Most state constitutions demand a balanced budget, but states lack some big obligations of the federal government, including national defense. And Washington’s ability to go deeper into debt provides states with at least a minimal safety net in times of high unemployment.

Last edited by Paparock; 02-13-2013 at 04:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 11:06 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow ICE Union Leader Reveals Shocking Details About Immigration Enforcement in Testimony

Must Watch: ICE Union Leader Reveals Shocking Details About Immigration Enforcement in Testimony Before Congress

Chris Crane (CSPAN)

Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, made a number of stunning revelations during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday — and he’s begging Congress for help. The ICE union boss argued that agents are no longer allowed to arrest illegal aliens solely for illegal entry or expired visas and morale is at an all-time low.

Most Americans would be shocked to find out that immigration agents are regularly “prohibited from enforcing the two most fundamental sections of United States immigration law,” he said. Instead, the administration has ordered that only illegals charged or convicted of “very serious criminal offenses” may be arrested or charged by ICE agents and officers.

“In fact, under current policy individuals legally in the United States must now be convicted of 3 or more criminal misdemeanors before ICE agents are permitted to charge or arrest the illegal alien for illegal entry or overstaying a visa,” he added. That is unless the misdemeanors involve assault, sexual abuse or drug trafficking.

Even more shocking, Crane said ICE agents or officers who witness a violation of immigration law are prohibited from making arrests and even from asking questions “under the threat of disciplinary action.”

Citing a recent morale survey disseminated throughout federal agencies, Crane said ICE ranks 279 out of 291 in employee morale and job satisfaction. He has previously asked the Obama administration to help address the plummeting morale and dissatisfaction among ICE agents.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is continually making it nearly impossible for agents to enforce federal immigration law because they allow special interests groups to influence policy, Crane explained.

The day-to day duties of ICE agents and officers often seem in conflict with the law as ICE officers are prohibited from enforcing many laws enacted by Congress; laws they took an oath to enforce,” he said. “ICE is now guided in large part by influences of powerful special interest groups that advocate on behalf of illegal aliens.”

Crane continued: “These influences have in large part eroded the order, stability and effectiveness of the agency, creating confusion among ICE employees. For the last four years it has been a roller coaster for ICE officers with regard to who they can or cannot arrest, and which federal laws they will be permitted to enforce. Most of these directives restricting enforcement are given only verbally to prevent written evidence from reaching the public.”

All of these restrictions being placed on ICE employees has put them in increased danger and the agency has seen assaults against ICE officers and agents continue to rise as “ICE arrestees become increasingly more violent and criminal in nature.”

You may be surprised to know that ICE agents are also prohibited from carrying life saving protective equipment like Tasers while on duty. Crane said ICE won’t approve the equipment due to “political reasons.”

Death or serious injury to ICE officers and agents appears more acceptable to ICE, DHS and administration leadership than the public complaints that would be lodged by special interest groups,” he added.
Crane closed with this:
“In closing, while deeply concerned by the actions of our agency, as well as the current state and future of immigration enforcement, we are optimistic that all of these matters can be resolved with the assistance of members of Congress.
Only time will tell if lawmakers will answer the repeated pleas for help. Nearly a dozen immigration agents have sued the Obama administration for the right to enforce immigration law.

Just as a side note, despite being AFL-CIO affiliates, the union representing ICE agents has been shunned by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka and shut out of the development of immigration policy with the union and the Obama administration. The ICE agents union reportedly made multiple attempts to contact Trumpka’s top advisors to resolve the situation but have been ignored.

Read Crane’s complete testimony below:

2-13-13CraneTestimony by

Read it all here>
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 06:10 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Obama Says the ‘Problem Is…I’m Not Emperor of the United States’

Obama Says the ‘Problem Is…I’m Not Emperor of the United States’
by Jason Howerton

During a Google hangout Thursday night, President Barack Obama was asked about his administration deporting “record numbers” of illegal immigrations during his first term. His poorly phrased response sounded more like something you might expect from Vice President Joe Biden.

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” Obama said. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Watch the video below:

Now, while many of the president’s conservative critics argue that he has behaved like an “emperor” by exerting his will via executive orders, it is unlikely that Obama was actually lamenting the fact that he is not the emperor of the United States.

That still probably won’t stop people from arguing he accidentally revealed what he truly desires, but it really seems to have been a Biden-esque gaffe.

(H/T: The Weekly Standard, Drudge)

Last edited by Paparock; 02-16-2013 at 06:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 04:39 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down US Government Funds Radical Israeli NGOs

US Government Funds Radical Israeli NGOs
How the haters of the Jewish Sate siphon money from U.S. taxpayers.
by Caroline Glick

Earlier this month NGO Monitor released its report on foreign government funding of radical political Israeli NGOs which work to undermine Israel’s international standing and subvert Israeli society. Along with the usual European suspects who give millions of shekels (or Euros or pounds) to Israeli groups like this, it works out that the US government is also funding extremely radical organizations, courtesy of American taxpayers. Notably, the three groups that reported receiving funding from the US are all in the business of waging political warfare campaigns directed at the Israeli public.

According to the report, in accordance with the NGO Transparency Law which requires NGOs to report on donations received from foreign governments, three Israeli NGOs received funding from the US.

Keshev, a radical leftist “media watchdog” group run by some of Israel’s most outspoken, and radical journalists and writers received NIS 492,452 in direct aid from the US government. To understand how subversive Keshev is, it suffices to note that they criticized the Israeli media for rushing to judgment about Fatah’s unity deal with Hamas. That is, the group the US supports believes we should not criticize Fatah for joining forces with a genocidal jihadist movement committed to the obliteration of Israel that is in cahoots with the Iranians.

Through Catholic Relief Services,the US also gave NIS 220,304 to the anti-Israel pressure group B’Tselem. The money was used to fund B’Tselem’s video project. B’tselem’s video project involves the distribution of video cameras to Palestinians to film snuff films that portry Israelis as aggressive bullies who seek to harm the Palestinians for no reason.

Numerous examples have already been reported of how those film clips have falsely portrayed events.

Finally, the US government donated NIS 15,474 through the Foundation for Middle East Peace to the far left internet outlet Social TV. To a certain degree, Social TV can be — and has been — portrayed as the anti-Zionist answer to Latma, the Hebrew-language media criticism site that I run. But Latma is wholly funded by private contributors and foundations.

It would have never occurred to me to ask a foreign government to fund the project. It never would have occurred to me to ask a foreign government to get into the media watchdog game in Israel. But then, from reading the report it is clear that the aim of the US government is not, in fact to help Israeli media outlets do a better job reporting on events. Rather, the report indicates that the US government has decided to use radical Israeli NGOs to wage political warfare in Israel. The aim of this campaign is to convince the public that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace with our neighbors.

It is worth noting that through US Embassy cables published by Wikileaks we learned from B’Tselem’s Executive Director Jessica Montell that B’Tselem is almost entirely dependent on foreign governmental assistance. She said that 95 percent of B’tselem’s budget is paid for by foreign governments. Montell told her interlocutor at the Embassy that B’Tselem wished to engender an international climate of hostility towards Israel that would make Israeli leaders fear the international response to IDF operations against Palestinian terror campaign so much that they would fear taking action. The cable was written after Operation Cast Lead. B’Tselem was one of the Israeli NGOs that told the Goldstone Commission Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza.

According to the leaked cable:
She [Montell] wanted the highest level decision-makers held accountable for the decisions they made on how to prosecute the conflict, including, Military Advocate Gneral (MAG) [BG Avi] Mandelblit…Her aim she said, was to make Israel weigh world opinion and consider whether it could “afford another operation like this.”
The Israeli media itself is already controlled in large part by the far Left. Channel 2 news and the station’s flagship satire program “Eretz Nehederet” played a huge role in shaping public perceptions in the last elections. Both worked overtime trying to demonize Naftali Bennett and the Jewish Home Party. This they did after they worked overtime demonizing the winners of Likud’s party primaries as right wing extremists. Muli Segev, Eretz Nehederet’s editor in chief bragged in an interview in Haaretz that his show was directly responsible for the party’s loss of several Knesset seats.

The media’s overwhelming far left bias has been on shocking display this week with their wall-to-wall coverage of the story of the prison suicide of suspected traitor Benjamin Zygier. This man was apparently a double agent, a turncoat. He was imprisoned under a false name, as agreed to by him, his attorneys and his family. He killed himself. His body was sent to his family in Australia for burial. End of story.

Who cares about him? He was a traitor.

The entire story was brought to light because three radical post-Zionist and anti-Zionist members of Knesset abused their parliamentary immunity to announce on live television what the military censor had, for reasons of national security placed a gag order on. That is, by covering this story — and for the past two days, Channel 2, which has a monopoly share of the prime time news ratings — has devoted half of its broadcast time to the story — the media is dancing to the tune dictated by the most radical leftist forces in Israeli politics. It is a travesty.

But apparently, the State Department thinks this anti-Israel activism posing as the local media is insufficiently pro-Arab. And so it is funding these even more radical Israeli pressure groups.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 04:59 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down How the U.S. Aids Hamas Through the Palestinian Authority

How the U.S. Aids Hamas Through the Palestinian Authority
Your tax dollars at work.
by David Bedein

On February 5, 2013, the reconstituted US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa held a subcommittee hearing on the subject of “Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation: Threatening Peace Prospects.”

Two senior expert witnesses from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy testified and expressed optimism that US trained Palestinian Security Forces, affiliated with the Fatah, will combat the Hamas terror group which competes for power in the nascent Palestinian Arab entity.

Yet the Fatah policy and attitude towards Hamas can be summarized in an exchange that I had with Fatah founder Yasser Arafat at a press conference in Oslo, on December 10, 1994, the night before Arafat became one of the recipeints of the Nobel Peace Prize.

My question/statement:
“Mr. Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, and Israeli Foreign Minister of Foreign Affairs Peres said a few hours ago in answer to my question, that you deserve the peace prize because you have committed yourself to crushing the Hamas terror organization.”
Arafat response: “I do not understand the question. Hamas are my brothers.”

When the Palestinian Authority was founded in 1994, President Yasser Arafat, by design, established a multiplicity of security forces with overlapping authority and in competition with one another.

The 17 diverse forces of the PA, which often constituted no more than private fiefdoms, were ineffective and corrupt. What mattered to Arafat was that no force was of sufficient size or competency to seize power.

In several instances while Arafat was in power, PA forces turned their weapons on Israel. In September 2000, Arafat recruited security forces to organize attacks on civilians and soldiers in the course of what was called the Second Intifada, or uprising.

The Israeli military decimated the PA security forces in 2002, with facilities demolished and weapons seized.

Serious involvement by the West began to revitalize the PSF, the Palestinian Security Forces, after Arafat’s death in November 2004.

Subsequent US support for the PA Security Forces was intended to be a step towards creation of that stable Palestinian Arab entity.

In 2005, the Office of the US Security Coordinator was established. The 16 US officers who work within that office are assigned to the State Department. The Coordinator reports directly to the Secretary of State.

Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, reorganized the security services into six main forces, and instituted a policy of mandatory retirement at age 60. Efforts by the US to strengthen the PA forces were delayed, however, by the Hamas victory in the Palestinian Authority legislative election in 2006. Hamas held a majority of the seats in the legislature and was heavily represented in the government. In addition, it had created its own security forces, with generous funds from Iran and Syria.

In June 2007, Hamas fighters routed a US-equipped and US-trained PA force that was 10 times bigger and captured the Gaza Strip. The failure of the PA forces was plain to see, and the US was prepared to invest more vigorously in strengthening that force because Abbas then ostensibly separated a Fatah-controlled government from direct involvement with Hamas.

By 2008, the Office of the Security Coordinator, with a staff of 145, defined as a key goal of its efforts, the development of a PA security force with paramilitary capabilities that could protect Abbas’ regime from Hamas. The American investment in this venture encompassed major assistance in reforming the forces and rebuilding of infrastructure, providing of equipment and major involvement in training.

In 2011, the Security Office enlarged its focus to include the development of PA indigenous readiness, training, and logistics programs as well as the capability to maintain and sustain operational readiness and support infrastructure. By that year, U.S.-financed training programs had graduated 4,761 Palestinian cadets from the U.S.-supported Jordanian International Police Training Center in Amman. The Coordinator’s Office also conducted training in the West Bank attended by 3,500 security commanders and troops. Washington helped build joint operations centers for planning, command, and control, as well as the National Training Center in Jericho.

However, as we consider the situation now, in early 2013, we see that not only has that goal of providing PA Security Forces with the capacity to repel Hamas not been achieved; over the past year, the influence of Hamas within the PA security forces has grown significantly. This, in spite of all the funding, training, and weaponry that has been supplied.

All other factors aside, there is an underlying cause that is routinely overlooked: the nature of traditional Arab (which includes Palestinian Arab) culture. Whatever the PR promoting a Palestinian state would have us believe, the reality is that for many Palestinian Arabs, loyalty does not rest with some abstract notion of a state that must be defended. Primary, loyalty is to the extended family: the clan. Training does not significantly alter this perception.

The problem lies with the fact that within the same extended clan there may be those serving in the PA security forces and those who are members of Hamas. Security forces officers are loath to do battle with their brothers in Hamas. In a 2011 report done by the Center for Near East Policy Research on “The Dangers of US aid to PA security forces,” this issue was addressed. Dr. Mordecai Kedar, research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, said the troops can be loyal to the PA for the present:
However, when (not if) there will be domestic problems in the PA/Palestinian State these people will be loyal primarily to their clan [Arabic: hamula] rather than to the state, since they will never shoot their brothers or cousins…
A prominent Palestinian-Israeli journalist explained that the clan system is not as strong as it once was, however:
This is Arab society. You can’t erase a centuries-old tradition—can’t tamper with culture. It will never work. You can’t impose a solution on anyone.
Another cultural predisposition among the Palestinian Arabs has to do with combating terrorism. General Amidror, former head of the IDF’s Research and Assessment Division and currently serving as Security Advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, observed that:
There is a huge difference in the Palestinian view between law enforcement, which is seen as legitimate, and anti-terrorism, which is NOT seen as legitimate.

The US confuses the two.
This assessment has never been properly assimilated by US authorities involved with the training program. The PA has no laws against money laundering for terror groups; PA statutes do not define any group as a terrorist organization. There has never been action against Hamas undertaken by PA security forces out of an anti-terrorist ideological conviction.

We might ask then, why American government and military officials have blithely ignored these realities, instead proceeding according to their own version of the situation: a version that is likely doomed to fail.

But even beyond these basic cultural facts lie other problems. There has been a decline of the PA security forces that has been accelerated by the fiscal crisis that began in the fall of 2012. With monthly salaries withheld or partially issued, many PA officers have stopped any semblance of work. With the consent of their commanders, the officers clock in and then go off to other jobs. This search for money has been exploited by Hamas, made rich by donors such as Iran and Qatar.

Numerous PA officers have been quietly working for Hamas, notably in its military wing, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Hamas penetration has been strong in several areas of the West Bank, particularly in the Hebron region, where senior PA intelligence officers are believed to be providing intelligence to Hamas.

Coupled with this is a new rapprochement in process between the PA and Hamas, with talk of a unity government.

Separation between the PA and Hamas following the Gaza coup was never as total as was popularly imagined. As early as 2008, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter charged that the PA was committed to transferring roughly 4 billion shekels each year to Hamas to help pay salaries of its workers and security officers. Abbas also arranged for the PA to pay for the electricity generated for the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Now there is evidence of Fatah-Hamas coordination in parts of the West Bank. The PA has lifted the ban against Hamas rallies, and Hamas has gained control of many West Bank mosques. Israel’s intelligence community has determined that Hamas politburo Chief Khaled Masha’al has ordered the establishment of military cells to take over the West Bank.

What Israel now faces is a worst-case scenario: PA security forces have a history of turning on Israelis. With the increased cooperation between the PA and Hamas, the likelihood of this happening again grows more likely.

Statements of late by PA officials suggest such cooperation. Former PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, for example, has called for unity with Hamas that would “win further victories for us.” With Hamas cooperation, he said the PA would escalate “the struggle against Israel” in 2013.

However, should there be a repeat of prior attacks by PA forces, bolstered by cooperation with Hamas, dealing with the situation will be far more difficult than it has been previously. Now those PA forces are far better equipped and trained, thanks to a US policy that may have been ill-advised from the outset.

The time has come for an evaluation of the impact of US aid to the PA Security Forces, however well intended.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 04:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s War on American Generals

Obama’s War on American Generals
Firing a few good men
by Daniel Greenfield

During the Bush administration there were only two American commanders of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Under Obama there have so far been five. There has been a new ISAF commander nearly every single year that Obama has been in office. The only exception is 2012 when Obama was too busy trying to win an election to bother further sabotaging a losing war.

The parade of musical chair generals began when Obama demanded the resignation of General McKiernan. The Washington Post called the firing of a wartime commander a “rare decision.” It was the first time since the days of General Douglas MacArthur that a four-star commanding general had been purged during a war.

The decision may have been rare, but it was not unexpected. General McKiernan was fired for the same offense that General McArthur had been targeted during the Korean War: He had demanded competency from an incompetent Democrat.

McKiernan had embarrassed Obama by demanding more troops to fight the war. The situation came to a head as General McKiernan pressed an indecisive Obama to make a decision. It was a devastating scene for an administration which had covered its pivot away from Iraq with concern trolling about winning in Afghanistan. The troops would be delivered, but McKiernan would pay the price.

General McKiernan’s firing was put down to the need for fresh ideas.

McKiernan was deemed too “old school” because he wanted to fight an old-fashioned war against the Taliban while Obama Inc. believed that the war couldn’t be won by beating the Taliban, but by winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. It was a fashionable and doomed strategy that required sacrificing the lives and limbs of thousands of American soldiers to political correctness.

The old-school general who had once said, “I don’t understand ever putting your men and women in harm’s way, without their having the full ability to protect themselves. That also means operating on actionable intelligence to defeat insurgents, and protect your forces. That’s how you keep your soldiers alive,” was clearly not the man for that job.

Replacing him as ISAF commander was General McChrystal. McChrystal was everything that McKiernan wasn’t. He was hip fresh blood. He voted for Obama, listened to the right music and was a big fan of counterinsurgency. He hooked up with Greg Mortenson and handed out copies of Three Cups of Tea to his staff. The book proved to be a fraud and so did the COIN strategy for winning over the Afghans.

American soldiers were prevented from defending themselves to avoid offending the Afghans and the war was not moving forward. McChrystal claimed that he had presented a plan to Washington for defeating the Taliban, but Washington only wanted their capabilities degraded. The relationship between McChrystal and Obama also degraded, and McChrystal was fired over a negative Rolling Stone article that revealed that the ISAF commander held Obama and his cronies in contempt.

Urgently, Obama swapped out General McChrystal for General Petraeus, a former enemy now turned wartime ally. In only two years, Obama had gone through three generals and fired two wartime four-star generals, setting a new record for mismanaging a war.

Petraeus’s move from Central Command to commanding the ISAF was unprecedented and did not last long. With the Taliban undefeated and the conflict shifting from a military war to a campaign of drone strikes and targeted assassinations, General Petraeus shifted over to the CIA to command the new fallback position of the war effort as Director Petraeus. But a year later, Petraeus met the same fate as McKiernan and McChrystal after alienating the CIA top brass which enmeshed him in a scandal. It did not help matters any that Republicans were salivating over the idea of a Petraeus candidacy in 2016.

Petraeus had been replaced by General Allen, who became enmeshed in the same scandal, and the confirmation hearings of his replacement, General Dunford, were sped up. This month, Dunford has taken command of an ISAF in retreat as Afghanistan has become the new Iraq. And Dunford has become the fifth ISAF commander under Obama. Of his four predecessors, all have ended their careers under a cloud.

The War in Afghanistan has been lost and so have the careers of most of its commanders. Obama has constantly swapped out generals, and unlike the rotating allied ISAF commanders during the Bush era, many of them were fired because they threatened Obama politically in some way.

The record is an ugly one, but it is not limited to the war theater in Afghanistan. After the Benghazi disaster, General Carter Ham of AFRICOM was reportedly edged out after telling a Republican Congressman that he had not received any requests for support. His replacement, General Rodriguez, had earlier taken over part of McKiernan’s job after Obama had forced him out.

More recently General Mattis, the commander of United States Central Command, Petraeus’s old job, was booted out without even a personal phone call for being too hawkish about Iran. The insult was unprecedented and the reason was the same. Like McKiernan and McChrystal, Mattis had offended important people in the Obama administration. And for that he paid the price.

General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, exemplifies the costs of career survival in the age of Obama. Dempsey echoes everything that the civilians tell him. He never disagrees with them in public and likely not in private. Whatever new gimmick comes out of the White House, whether it’s Green Energy or homosexuality, he’s right there behind it and out in front of it.

Dempsey has no ideas of his own and he doesn’t need any. He has nothing to bring to the table except a willingness to act as Obama’s pet parrot in a uniform. When McChrystal first met Obama, he recalled thinking that Obama was “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the room full of military brass. That observation helped get McChrystal fired and these days it’s the military brass that feels uncomfortable and intimidated by Obama Inc.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 08:17 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation True blue obama voter

Democratic poll worker may have voted 6 times for Obama

The Ohio woman who cheerily admitted to voting twice for President Barack Obama, is under investigation into whether she cast a whopping total of six ballots.

Last edited by Paparock; 02-20-2013 at 08:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 04:20 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow John Kerry’s Peculiar Priorities

John Kerry’s Peculiar Priorities
Debut speech as Secretary of State pushes foreign “investment” and global warming action in a world saturated with Islamic jihad and totalitarian danger.
by Joseph Klein

Editor’s note: The graphic on the left is created by our IllustWriter Bosch Fawstin. Visit his site here.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are running all over North Africa and the Middle East while remaining a serious threat to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Approximately 70,000 Syrians are dead in a civil war exploited by Iran, Russia and Islamist jihadists. Egypt is an economic basket case, ruled by an increasingly unpopular authoritarian Islamist regime. Iran is getting ever closer to achieving its nuclear arms ambitions. North Korea has just exploded its third and most powerful nuclear bomb and is also developing inter-continental missile technology, which its military has said is “targeted” for the United States. China is engaging in cyber attacks on U.S. companies and government agencies. The “reset” of relations with Russia is reset in reverse.

In short, Secretary of State John Kerry assumes his office facing some of the most challenging foreign policy issues in a generation. One might think that his first major foreign policy address would deal with the clear and present dangers facing the United States and the free world today, such as the proliferation of nuclear arms into the wrong hands, the Arab Spring-Turned-Winter or global terrorism, which cost Ambassador John Christopher Stevens and three other Americans their lives last September 11th.

But that would be too much to ask. Instead, Kerry decided to use his speech on February 20th at the University of Virginia to indulge in clichéd generalities about the importance of State Department foreign “investments” (i.e., foreign aid), promotion of American values abroad, and the need to tackle climate change. He also threw in for good measure a warning about budget cuts and the looming sequester.

“Some might ask why I’m standing here – why I’m starting here – a Secretary of State making his first speech in the United States,” Kerry said. “They might ask, ‘Doesn’t diplomacy happen over there, overseas, far beyond the boundaries of our own backyard?’”

A good question, but John Kerry gave an answer that is more fitting for a high school social studies teacher:
The reason is very simple: I came here to underscore that in today’s global world, there is no longer anything foreign about foreign policy. More than ever before, the decisions we make from the safety of our shores don’t just ripple outward – they also create a current right here in America….

In this age, when a shrinking world clashes with calls for shrinking budgets, it’s our job to connect the dots for the American people between what we do over there and why it matters here at home – why the price of abandoning our global efforts would be exorbitant – and why the vacuum we would leave by retreating within ourselves will quickly be filled by those whose interests differ dramatically from our own.
Kerry said that before he embarks on his first trip abroad this weekend it was important to speak at home about the importance of our “investment” in foreign aid. Never mind the many billions of dollars wasted on corrupt regimes, failed assistance programs, a bloated United Nations, etc. More tax dollars for foreign aid is an investment essential to helping our businesses compete abroad, he argued.

“Eleven of our top 15 trading partners used to be beneficiaries of U.S. foreign assistance,” Kerry said. Whether he was including in this total aid from the Marshall Plan to re-build Europe after World War II was not clear, although he mentioned the Marshall Plan towards the end of his speech. But one thing is for sure. The aid we are squandering today in the underdeveloped world is going to do little more than create more dependency.

Kerry also singled out a number of countries where he claimed the State Department was instrumental in obtaining foreign purchases and investments that helped American companies. For example, he heralded the “success in Canada, where State Department officers there got a local automotive firm to invest tens of millions of dollars in Michigan, where the American auto industry is making a remarkable comeback.”

Ironically, Kerry’s State Department could return the favor to Canada very quickly by giving final approval to the long-stalled Keystone pipeline to transport oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Canada is the United States’s most important trading partner. Kerry has a long-standing interest in the pipeline and will be personally leading the State Department’s review of the project. The first foreign leader Kerry met with as Secretary of State was with Canada’s foreign minister, John Baird, in early February, with whom he reportedly discussed the Keystone pipeline project. However, Kerry gave no indication which way he was leaning on the recommendation he will eventually make to President Obama.

Recall that Kerry told his University of Virginia audience how important it is for the State Department “to connect the dots for the American people.”

Let’s help him connect some dots of his own regarding the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline project would connect to thousands of more jobs for Americans. It would increase our connection with our neighbor to the north, rather than alienate them, and connect our supply of oil to a friendly, reliable source. It would help disconnect us from dependence on the volatile Middle East for oil. Less dependence on OPEC will enhance our national security.

What is preventing Secretary of State Kerry from connecting these dots? His hyper-focus on climate change, which he said “may be the only thing our generations are remembered for” if we don’t rise to the challenge.

Kerry has been on the forefront of the climate-change-is-a-national-security-threat theme for years. In July 2009, for example, then-Senator Kerry convened a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to focus on how climate change was supposedly linked to national defense. At the hearing, Kerry called climate change “a grave and growing threat to … America’s national security.” The committee heard testimony on the specter of “climate conflicts,” and Kerry himself compared the threat to 9/11. In his first major speech as Secretary of State at the University of Virginia, he linked climate change to “standing up for American jobs and businesses and standing up for our American values.”

Endangering an already fragile economy with immediate drastic measures to deal with a complicated, multi-faceted long-term problem does little to help our national defense or to create more American jobs. Holding up a favorable recommendation on the Keystone pipeline because of its possible impact on climate change is counter-productive, since Canada will only turn to environmentally unfriendly China to purchase its oil.

Finally, Kerry couldn’t resist using the phrase “world citizens” in his University of Virginia speech. It is reminiscent of his declaration during the 2004 presidential campaign that America’s decision to go to war must pass “the global test” – whatever that means.

Let’s hope that Kerry’s debut speech as Secretary of State is not indicative of how he will perform on the global stage. But with the radical Obama administration behind him, the outlook is pessimistic.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 06:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down The Business of Arming Terrorists: While disarming Americans.

The Business of Arming Terrorists
While disarming Americans.
by Theodore Shoebat

Obama wants to decree a ban on all assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons, which would apply to rifles and pistols. On this ban, Obama stated clearly:
I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it… I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.
Yet, the Obama administration has been involved in providing weapons to Syrian rebels who have committed many atrocities across Syria. Why must Americans be disarmed and jihadists be given weapons? Americans are simply observing a right, while the Islamists want guns to force Syria into becoming a Sharia governed state.

Leon Panetta, who is now retiring, and General Martin Dempsey, the principle military adviser of Obama, have both revealed that they supported a plan last year composed by Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus that would provide weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are all fighting for a jihadist cause.

John Mccain also supported, and still supports, this plan, saying:
“I urge the president to heed the advice of his former and current national security leaders and immediately take the necessary steps, along with our friends and allies, that could hasten the end of the conflict in Syria”
Though Obama is said to have turned down this plan, he still has supported the Syrian rebellion in a very covert and elusive manner. The current administration has instead used a middle-man: Saudi Arabia, to receive American weapons and then transfer them to the hands of the jihadists.

Michael Kelley of Business Insider reported last year that in
2011 the U.S. sold $33.4 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and $1.7 billion to Qatar as sales tripled to a record high and accounted for nearly 78 percent of all global arms sales.
And where did these weapons go to? Syria, where they were obtained by jihadists who would not hesitate for a second to behead any American, or any non-Muslim.

As one American official put it:
“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it”
Though the U.S. is not directly sending arms to the revolutionists, it is providing support for shipping small arms such as rifles (which Obama wants to ban in the U.S.) and grenades, and therefore, is nevertheless directly supporting the rebels themselves.

So, to Obama Americans shouldn’t have rifles but Syrian rebels should? This dangerous distortion is just more evidence as to how supportive the current administration has been for the Islamists.

The American government actually expected an organized plan mapped out by the rebels that would show how Syria will be governed in the future. But they haven’t received any future plans, and the reason is that the rebels are using the Americans for the assistance but refuse to reveal their true intentions for a post-Assad Syria, since what they really desire is a Muslim Brotherhood ruled nation.

One Middle Eastern diplomat, who has worked extensively with the C.I.A., has said that there hasn’t been any report by the rebels as to how Syria will be ruled after Assad is removed. In his own words:
We haven’t seen anyone step up to take a leadership role for what happens after Assad, … There’s not much of anything that’s encouraging. We should have lowered our expectations.
Syria is going down the road to become just another state of the future Sunni confederacy that is forming, alongside Egypt and Libya.
Obama said to NBC that:
there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids.
Yet, his administration is helping ship rifles and grenades to Syria, and is working with the Saudis to provide arms to Islamic renegades who themselves have severe urges to commit some of the most vile violence caught on film.

Just to give you a picture of how these rebels use their guns, here is a video of jihadists executing a Syrian police officer:

Another film I found shows a sadistic bunch of rebels beheading a man in cold blood while laughing and saying “Allah is greater.” If you have the heart for it, the video is found here:

Brutal Beheading Execution Of Prisoner By ‘Free Syrian Army’ *Warning Graphic*

Recent footage shows jihadists executing an innocent civilian. The killer even phones his mother to let her know the sinister act he is about to commit:

The Execution of Sunni Civilians in Syria.

In Syria right now, the most armed entity is the military, the second most equipped are the rebels, and the most defenseless are the civilians. In the midst of the fray, the civilians are the ones who suffer the most, since the Islamists have the weapons, and the military is unable to protect all places of the country at once.

Now, apply this to America. If a full weapons band was ever decreed, the military, the police, and the lawless would be the most armed, and American civilians helpless. Police and military personal would not be able to protect the entire country, leaving the criminals many opportunities to pick out their victims.

Obama and the rest of his leftist ilk keep promoting the idea that guns are the problem, while neglecting the roots of the issue at hand: violent ideologies. All murderers, be they jihadists or spree killers, reject the philosophical idea that life is sacred. Since the Left is not pro-life, they have refused to confront this issue all together, and so are now giving the way to terrorists. The assistance to terrorists in the Middle East will provide confidence for Islamists here in America. Just take a look at the news now. Just this month, a Muslim named Yusuf Ibrahim shot to death two Coptic Christians (Hanny F. Tawadros, 25, and Amgad A. Konds, 27), decapitated them, severed their hands, and buried them in a randomly picked yard. We’re going to be seeing more of this as Islam is allowed to rise and thrive on our insane obsession on tolerance.

As I write in my book, For God or For Tyranny, when the Third Reich reigned, Hitler and his minions established the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938, which prohibited German civilians from owning any firearms. The Left is doing the same thing, but in a ‘nicer,’ ‘gentler,’ more ‘sensitive’ and gradual way. Only those without prudence, foresight, and some historical knowledge on how tyrannies function, would believe that the Obama administration really wants to end crime and protect children (they are all pro-choice).

In our Declaration of Independence, one of the stated reasons for the American Revolution was that King George
excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
If the Second Amendment is ever done away with, the only people that would be helped are the savages amongst us.

Theodore Shoebat is the author of the book, For God or For Tyranny.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 07:45 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation GAO Report Finds Obamacare Likely to Add $6.2 Trillion to the Deficit

GAO Report Finds Obamacare Likely to Add $6.2 Trillion to the Deficit

A recent analysis by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals that President Obama’s health care overhaul is likely to add $6.2 trillion to the deficit over the next 75 years.

It is just the latest report to contradict President Obama’s repeated claims that the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as “Obamacare,” will not add “one dime” to the deficit and is in fact the fiscally responsible decision.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the Senate Budget Committee’s top Republican, requested the report from the GAO and discussed its findings Tuesday.

“The results of this brand new report confirm everything critics and Republicans were saying about the cost of this bill, and reveal the dramatic falsehoods that were used to push it to passage,” he stated.

After highlighting President Obama’s pledge that he would “not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future. Period,” Sessions continued: “The GAO’s investigation reveals these claims to be false.”

“According to the GAO, with a realistic set of assumptions, the health care law will increase the deficit by seven tenths of 1% of GDP, or roughly $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years,” he said. “In other words, the GAO reveals that the big tax increases in the bill come nowhere close to covering the even more massive spending.”

National Review has a copy of the GAO report and Sessions’ remarks:

While many studies thus far have focused on a ten-year projection, which includes several years of extra taxes before the program is actually implemented, the GAO attempted to look decades into the future, factoring in an aging population, economic growth, and the mandatory spending that would come with more people getting their health care through the government.

They didn’t decisively determine that the debt would increase by $6.2 trillion, but said much of it hinges on total enrollment in government programs, whether cost-containment measures are sustained, and whether excess costs can be trimmed.

The GAO didn’t seem optimistic, however. Here’s what they had to say in their findings:

(Photo: Government Accountability Office via National Review)

According to the Hill, Democrats are countering claims that Obamacare increases the deficit by citing a report from the Congressional Budget Office that says, at this point, overturning the law will cost $109 billion over ten years.

Either way, one of Sessions’ points seems clear: “The big-government crowd in Washington manipulated the numbers to get the financial score they wanted, to get their bill passed and to increase their power and influence.”

(H/T: National Review)

Last edited by Paparock; 02-27-2013 at 07:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 05:51 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on "Morning Joe" today, saying he's exhibiting a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'" Woodward said.

"That’s a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time," he said.

Woodward's harsh criticism came after he stirred controversy last weekend by calling out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 07:20 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s ‘Non-Profit’ Sells Political Access

Obama’s ‘Non-Profit’ Sells Political Access
An incestuous relationship brews between the mega-wealthy and the White House
by Arnold Ahlert

Last weekend, the New York Times revealed that President Obama’s campaign apparatus, Organizing for Action (OFA), has reinvented itself as a 501c 4 tax-exempt non-profit advocacy group offering access to the president in return for a large donation. “Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House,” reports the Times.

Furthermore, the OFA’s reincarnation as an IRS-identified social welfare group is nothing less than a cynical attempt to violate the spirit of federal election laws. As the Times notes, OFA’s new status means that “it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.” That self-regulation will ostensibly include releasing the names of the group’s largest donors “every few months,” as a well as a promise not to have administration officials involved in fund-raising — even though those officials may appear at some events.

“The Obama team’s brazen attempt to convert the assets of its political campaign into assets to promote the President’s political agenda and the electoral fortunes of his Democratic allies is unprecedented in American political history,” writes Breitbart’s Michael Patrick Leahy. Leahy also contends Obama and OFA are “betting that they’ve cleverly discovered a loophole, one that Republicans will fail to challenge legally.” Robert K. Kelner, a Republican election lawyer agrees, noting that this unprecedented arrangement “presents a rather simple loophole in the otherwise incredibly complex web of government ethics regulations that are intended to insulate government officials from outside influence.”

On Monday, in a rare attempt by the White House press corps to ask challenging questions, Press Secretary Jay Carney was challenged to explain what was going on. As this video reveals Carney did nothing more than read talking points from a prepared statement. “Administration officials routinely interact with outside advocacy organizations, and this has been true in prior administrations, and it is true in this one,” Carney insisted. He further insisted the president was prepared to do several things “to eliminate the corrosive influence of money in Washington.”

Yet Carney was pressed further by Fox News’ Ed Henry. “You’re not denying the point that was reported by the New York Times, that even though (Obama) is for all those reforms, that if you give $500,000 or more to this group, you get access to the president,” he said. “The president is engaged in an effort to pass items on his agenda, and outside organizations that support that agenda…administration officials can meet with them, including the president,” Carney responded. “But the fact of the matter is this is an independent organization supporting an agenda.”

In other words, the answer is yes.

As for the agenda itself, OFA’s executive director, and Jon Carson illuminated the opening salvo of causes to prospective donors in a conference call last Wednesday, according to those involved. “There are wins we can have on guns and immigration,” he contended. “We have to change the conventional wisdom on those issues.”

The effort to change the conventional wisdom is made far easier by a state-of-the-art technological infrastructure with access to the president’s 2 million volunteers, 17 million e-mail subscribers, 22 million Twitter followers, and virtually every registered voter in the country. That technology allows OFA to deliver millions of messages in several different formats, including Facebook, Twitter, email and texts. It has already been used to pump up support for the president’s State of the Union speech, and his gun-control agenda.

OFA was launched on January 18. At the time, the president sent out an email with the subject line “Say you’re in,” to his supporters. He promised them OFA would constitute “an unparalleled force in American politics…turn our shared values into legislative action—and it’ll empower the next generation of leaders in our movement.”

OFA’s roster includes 2012 Obama campaign manager Jim Messina as Chairman of the Board, and Obama advisor David Axelrod as a consultant. Other members of the group, based in Washington and Chicago, include 2008 Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, and other longtime supporters, such as Robert Gibbs, Stephanie Cutter, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Erik Smith, Julianna Smoot, and technology entrepreneur and top campaign fundraiser Frank White.

To reiterate, presidential access requires $500,000 or more, which the group anticipates will fund at least half of its anticipated budget, expected to total $50 million. Yet in March, when OFA holds a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, donors willing to pony up $50,000 will be granted access to Jim Messina and Jon Carson.

President Obama’s willingness to make himself accessible to this organization and its high-rolling donors has come under criticism. “It just smells,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to holding elected officials accountable to the public. “The president is setting a very bad model setting up this organization.” At MSNBC, even the reflexively liberal Chuck Todd was incredulous. “This just looks bad. It looks like the White House is selling access,” he contended. “The definition of how you define selling access. If you believe money has a stranglehold over the entire political system, this is ceding the moral high ground. And the President always has, from the moment he first announced his presidential bid in Springfield, six years ago, he stressed the need to curb the influence of special interests in Washington.”

One needn’t go back six years. In 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of rescinding government-imposed restrictions on free speech, President Obama railed against the decision. “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” he said. “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Thus, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. And it is further amplified by the president’s effort to characterize OFA as an organization powered by “grass roots activists.” Yet according to Politico, OFA has “closely affiliated itself with insider liberal organizations funded by mega-donors like George Soros and corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Citi and Duke Energy,” as well as “the same rich donors who backed Obama’s campaigns, asking for help from Democratic donors and bundlers in town for the Inauguration at a closed-door corporate-sponsored confab that featured Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker.”

None of this should surprise anyone. Barack Obama has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he is willing to advance his agenda by any means necessary, even if he is revealed as an overt liar and unbridled hypocrite in the process. During his inaugural address, Obama claimed, “We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky or happiness for the few.” On the other hand, access to the president is reserved for those with $500,000 or more.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 04:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation White house threatens woodward: 'you will regret doing this'...

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'You're going to regret doing something that you believe in,'" Woodward said.

"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.

The White House aide who Woodward said threatened him was Gene Sperling, the director of the White House Economic Council, BuzzFeed's Ben Smith reported.

Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

Last weekend, Woodward called out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 04:29 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Fmr. Clinton Aide Davis Says He Received White House Threat

Fmr. Clinton Aide Davis Says He Received White House Threat

WASHINGTON -- Bob Woodward isn't the only person who's received threats for airing the Obama administration's dirty laundry. It seems anyone is a potential target of the White House these days - even former senior members of the Clinton administration.

A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.

Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials."

Davis says he does not know if the White House official involved in his case is the same one who is alleged to have threatened Woodward, but he says the language used in both cases is very similar. In any case, Davis says his editor, Solomon, was not worried by the threat.

"He didn't take it seriously, because he didn't think that could ever happen. He thought it was bluster," Davis told WMAL. "I called three senior people at the White House, and I said, 'I want this person to be told this can never happen again, and it's inappropriate.' I got a call back from someone who was in the White House saying it will never happen again."

If it did happen again, Davis believes the administration did it to the wrong person.

"Firstly, you don't threaten anyone. Secondly, you don't threaten Bob Woodward," said Davis. "He's one of the best reporters ever. He's factual. You can disagree with facts that he reports, but he's factual. Don't mess with him about his facts. You can mess with him about the interpretation of his facts, but this is not a reporter you tangle with," he added.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 04:40 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Full ‘Threat’ Email a Top White House Official Sent Bob Woodward

‘You Will Regret…’:
The Full ‘Threat’ Email a Top White House Official Sent Bob Woodward

Feb. 28, 2013

Veteran Washington journalist Bob Woodward rocked the political and media world Wednesday after he claimed that a senior White House official threatened him over his reporting that President Barack Obama was actually behind the imminent forced federal budget cuts known as sequestration.

Woodward told Politico the exchange occurred in an email after the aide, later reported to be economic adviser Gene Sperling, “yelled at [him] for a half-hour.” The line in question: “You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Woodward “repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “ ‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”

Politico published the email exchange between Sperling and Woodward in full Thursday morning:
From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
Read Woodward’s response to Sperling here.

The White House has denied threatening Woodward, telling Politico, “Of course no threat was intended. As Mr. Woodward noted, the email from the aide was sent to apologize for voices being raised in their previous conversation. The note suggested that Mr. Woodward would regret the observation.”
Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 06:38 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Being Led To The Slaughter By The Intellectual Elite.

Shepherds and Sheep
Being Led To The Slaughter By The Intellectual Elite.
by Thomas Sowell

John Stuart Mill’s classic essay “On Liberty” gives reasons why some people should not be taking over other people’s decisions about their own lives. But Professor Cass Sunstein of Harvard has given reasons to the contrary. He cites research showing “that people make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes can prove extremely damaging.”

Professor Sunstein is undoubtedly correct that “people make a lot of mistakes.” Most of us can look back over our own lives and see many mistakes, including some that were very damaging.

What Cass Sunstein does not tell us is what sort of creatures, other than people, are going to override our mistaken decisions for us. That is the key flaw in the theory and agenda of the left.

Implicit in the wide range of efforts on the left to get government to take over more of our decisions for us is the assumption that there is some superior class of people who are either wiser or nobler than the rest of us.

Yes, we all make mistakes. But do governments not make bigger and more catastrophic mistakes?

Think about the First World War, from which nations on both sides ended up worse off than before, after an unprecedented carnage that killed substantial fractions of whole younger generations and left millions starving amid the rubble of war.

Think about the Holocaust, and about other government slaughters of even more millions of innocent men, women and children under Communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

Even in the United States, government policies in the 1930s led to crops being plowed under, thousands of little pigs being slaughtered and buried, and milk being poured down sewers, at a time when many Americans were suffering from hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition.

The Great Depression of the 1930s, in which millions of people were plunged into poverty in even the most prosperous nations, was needlessly prolonged by government policies now recognized in retrospect as foolish and irresponsible.

One of the key differences between mistakes that we make in our own lives and mistakes made by governments is that bad consequences force us to correct our own mistakes.

But government officials cannot admit to making a mistake without jeopardizing their whole careers.

Can you imagine a President of the United States saying to the mothers of America, “I am sorry your sons were killed in a war I never should have gotten us into”?

What is even more relevant to Professor Sunstein’s desire to have our betters tell us how to live our lives, is that so many oppressive and even catastrophic government policies were cheered on by the intelligentsia.

Back in the 1930s, for example, totalitarianism was considered to be “the wave of the future” by much of the intelligentsia, not only in the totalitarian countries themselves but in democratic nations as well.

The Soviet Union was being praised to the skies by such literary luminaries as George Bernard Shaw in Britain and Edmund Wilson in America, while literally millions of people were being systematically starved to death by Stalin and masses of others were being shipped off to slave labor camps.

Even Hitler and Mussolini had their supporters or apologists among intellectuals in the Western democracies, including at one time Lincoln Steffens and W.E.B. Du Bois.

An even larger array of the intellectual elite in the 1930s opposed the efforts of Western democracies to respond to Hitler’s massive military buildup with offsetting military defense buildups to deter Hitler or to defend themselves if deterrence failed.

“Disarmament” was the mantra of the day among the intelligentsia, often garnished with the suggestion that the Western democracies should “set an example” for other nations — as if Nazi Germany or imperial Japan was likely to follow their example.

Too many among today’s intellectual elite see themselves as our shepherds and us as their sheep. Tragically, too many of us are apparently willing to be sheep, in exchange for being taken care of, being relieved of the burdens of adult responsibility and being supplied with “free” stuff paid for by others.

Last edited by Paparock; 02-28-2013 at 06:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 07:15 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Hamas Warns Obama Not to Visit Temple Mount

Hamas Warns Obama Not to Visit Temple Mount

Designated terrorist group Hamas has warned President Obama against visiting the holy Temple Mount site in Jerusalem when he visits Israel next month, saying the action would be “a diplomatic catastrophe.”

Mr. Obama hasn’t confirmed a visit to the Temple Mount. But Muslim leaders have heard rumors and have issued a blunt statement nonetheless, The Times of Israel reports.

Hamas said a visit by Mr. Obama to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is located just on the southern side of the Mount, would be “an imminent danger which the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem have never faced,” according to The Times of Israel. Hamas — which has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department since 1997 — also called any visit by Mr. Obama to the site of “the Zionist occupation” an act of danger.

Ekrima Sabri, who heads the High Islamic Council in Jerusalem, said his group “insist[s] on Muslim sovereignty over the Temple Mount,” according to The Times of Israel report.

Last edited by Paparock; 03-01-2013 at 07:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 09:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s Billion-Dollar Giveaway to the Muslim Brotherhood

Obama’s Billion-Dollar Giveaway to the Muslim Brotherhood
After sequester hysteria, John Kerry sends millions to Islamists in Egypt and Syria.
by Arnold Ahlert

In the past few weeks, Americans have been subjected to a barrage of doomsday predictions regarding the disaster that would befall us should the sequester come to pass. Many were rightly incensed, then, that last Thursday, only one day before the “devastating” sequester cuts were scheduled to kick in, newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Obama administration will be giving $60 million to a group of Syrian rebels fighting Bashsar Assad. This hypocrisy was quickly followed up with an announcement on Sunday by Kerry that the administration will be giving Egypt’s increasingly anti-democratic Muslim Brotherhood government $250 million in return for promises of economic reform — which will rise to $1 billion if that reform is deemed successful.
Kerry made the first announcement, on Syrian rebel aid, while attending an international conference on Syria in Rome. After asserting that Syrian President Bahsar Assad is “out of time and must be out of power,” Kerry revealed that the United States will be sending food rations known as M.R.E.s, as well as medicine to the rebels, via their central military headquarters. American advisors will supervise the distribution. Other countries will send additional aid, and Kerry is convinced the “totality” of that effort will impress Assad.

The rationale behind the funding is that something must be done to counter the extremist rebel factions who have better-organized networks for providing political and humanitarian services to Syrians resisting the Assad regime.

The aid will be given to the Syrian Opposition Coalition, the ostensible counter-weight to the Islamist al-Nusra Front, deemed a terrorist organization by the United States. “We need to help them to be able to deliver basic services and to protect the legitimate institutions of the state,” said Kerry. “You have a vulnerable population today that needs to be able to resist the pleas to engage in extremism.”

Despite Kerry’s announcement, such resistance isn’t costing American taxpayers a total of $60 million. That money is earmarked for essential services, such as sanitation and education, in areas currently controlled by rebels. Another $50 million dollars has already been spent providing assistance, such as communications equipment, to activists and local councils. Both amounts are in addition to the $385 million this administration has provided in humanitarian aid to the war-weary Syrian population.

Despite their newfound largesse, some of the rebels were disappointed by the outcome of their meeting with Kerry. “It is obvious that the real support is absent,” said Walid al-Bunni, a spokesman for the anti-Assad coalition. Al-Bunni insists weapons are priority number one. “What we want is to stop the Scuds launched on Aleppo, to stop the warplanes that are bombing our towns and villages,” he said.

At this point, that isn’t going to happen. Britain is supplying the rebels with militarily useful items, such as vehicles, bulletproof vests, and night vision goggles, but neither the U.S. nor the EU has any current intention of arming the rebels, for fear such weapons may end up in the wrong hands. The New York Times reports that the CIA is training Syrian rebels in Jordan, according to an official who wishes to remain anonymous. Yet neither weapons nor ammunition have been given to them either.

Former military intelligence officer and police detective Mike Snopes puts the timing and scope of the $60 million giveaway in proper perspective. ”This is an amazing example of Obama’s priorities,” he contended. “He spouts gloom and doom for the American people many of whom suffer daily due to an awful economic picture, but he spouts hope to Syrian rebels, many of them members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.”

Unfortunately, Kerry was only getting warmed up. He more than quadrupled down on Sunday in Egypt. The $250 million given to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was based on Morsi’s promise to enact economic reforms necessary to procure a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). That loan had been agreed to in principle last November, but violent street protests in December drove Cairo to suspend the request, according to Reuters. Yet according to the Washington Post, loan negotiations were set back by Egypt’s refusal to raise taxes last year. Complicating the issue even further was a downgrade of Egypt’s debt rating by Fitch, who contends the IMF loan is unlikely to happen until Egypt holds its next round of parliamentary elections beginning in April, and running in four stages through June.

Kerry is obviously trying to jumpstart the process. ”The United States can and wants to do more,” Kerry said in a statement. “Reaching an agreement with the IMF will require further effort on the part of the Egyptian government and broad support for reform by all Egyptians. When Egypt takes the difficult steps to strengthen its economy and build political unity and justice, we will work with our Congress at home on additional support.”

The initial $250 million funding will be divided into two parts. First, $190 million is aimed at alleviating what Kerry characterized as Egypt’s “extreme needs.” It comes from a $450 million package of aid that had been frozen by Congress due to Egypt’s instability and U.S. budget concerns.

Apparently not enough concern: despite the objections of congressional Republicans disenchanted with Morsi’s policies and past statements on Jews, the outlay was approved.

Another $60 million, for the creation of a fund aimed at “direct support to key engines of democratic change in Egypt, including Egypt’s entrepreneurs and its young people” brought the total outlay to a quarter of a billion dollars.

Again in the context of the relentless doom-and-gloom campaign surrounding sequestration, such assistance is dubious enough. Yet Americans must also remember that while half the sequestration cuts are being endured by the military, the U.S. is still sending 200 state-of-the-art Abrams tanks and 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as well. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to block the deal, originally made in 2009 with then-president Hosni Mubarak, but his amendment was defeated 79-19 in the Senate. Only Republicans voted against the measure.

An Abrams tank costs $4.3 million. An F-16 fighter jet is $45 million. Thus, another $1.760 billion of taxpayer funding has been used to further enhance the Muslim Brotherhood’s military capability. Yet when the amendment was defeated, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) contended the alternative was far worse, including “a loss of thousands of American jobs,” and “more than two billion dollars in contract-termination penalties for U.S. taxpayers.” In other words, the arming of a nation dominated by Islamists with interests completely inimical to the United States is the “lesser of two evils.”

John Kerry’s giveaway is even worse because it has occurred despite the fact that Egypt has denied U.S. interrogators access to Abu Ahmed (also known as Mohammed Jamal), the only publicly known suspect tied to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. While not suspected of taking part in the attack, Ahmed allegedly established training camps in Eastern Libya for those who did. This is on top of fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, at the first opportunity, moved to crush the Egyptian democracy movement in its cradle by granting the president uncheck authority, and has faced extreme opposition from genuine voices for freedom. The Morsi government has also adopted a Sharia-based constitution, continues to harass its Coptic Christian minority, has paid thugs to sexually assault women protesting in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and has reportedly begun to assemble a “morality police” force.

Promising upwards of a billion dollars to such a regime is bad enough in its own context. That the Obama administration is seemingly oblivious to the timing of this announcement, as well as one regarding the Syrian giveaway, borders on surreal. One is left to wonder how the laundry list of calamities we were assured would befall us — including cuts to education, small businesses, food safety, research and innovation, law enforcement, workplace safety, etc., etc., all of which would ”threaten thousands of jobs and the economic security of the middle class” — fits in with our subsidizing the ludicrous fiction that so-called Arab Spring has become.

The most obvious answer is that this administration remains confident that few Americans will make the connection. Or, in the event that they do, the same media that invariably rises to defend this administration will do its best to assure the malcontents that such expenditures are “minuscule” in the context of $3.6 trillion dollar annual budget. That would be the same media that took the exact opposite position regarding the 2.4 percent cut in spending engendered by the sequester.

Perhaps someone in the media could ask President Obama to explain his administration’s priorities, and why, so soon after warning us that doomsday was at hand, the interests of Islamic totalitarians apparently come ahead of American ones.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 09:35 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Video: Robert Spencer on the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House

Video: Robert Spencer on the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House
PolitiChick Ann-Marie Murrell talks to the Director of about the Obama administration’s disturbing Islamist ties.


PolitiChick Ann-Marie Murrell talks to the Director of about the Obama administration’s disturbing Islamist ties. The discussion focused on the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House and the influence of Islam in America–including CPAC, the upcoming conservative convention. The interview was conducted at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s recent 2013 West Coast Retreat, held at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California:

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum