Saturday, September 29, 2012

Obama's Intelligence Negligence

Obama's Intelligence Negligence
By Paul Kengor on 9.28.12 @ 6:10AM

Obama's defenders insist he has a Nixonian command of foreign policy.

I commented here recently on a startling fact of presidential incompetence, provided courtesy of the investigative work of an excellent new group called the Government Accountability Institute. The group reported a jaw-dropper: President Barack Obama didn't attend a single daily intelligence briefing in the week leading up to the anniversary of 9/11. In fact, he has attended a minority of daily briefings (44%) since becoming president, and a little better than a third over the last year. While skipping intelligence briefings, the president has enthusiastically campaigned and met with TV personalities. Obama has done so in this dangerous post-9/11 world, and as one who in his re-election speech at the Democratic convention flagrantly mocked his opponent's foreign-policy credentials.

And then, of course, all hell broke loose in the Middle East -- on the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001.

Consider the timeline:

The chaos started at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, with scenes looking eerily like a replay outside the U.S. embassy in Tehran 33 years ago under Jimmy Carter. Mere hours later in Libya, we learned of the murder of the first U.S. ambassador killed since the Carter years. By the end of the 9/11 week, the Middle East was in turmoil, with protests against America in over 20 cities, including Iraq, and with Afghanistan suddenly witnessing a surge in violence against U.S. troops, some of which were killed.

In a remarkable display that made those "Osama is Dead" signs at the Democratic convention look haughty and overconfident, Middle East demonstrators hoisted pro-Osama signs and chanted "Obama, we are all Osama!"

Things were looking bad for President Obama. But they got worse.

In one of his campaign interviews amid the Middle East madness, the president stated that Egypt is not a U.S. ally, prompting a public correction by no less than Jimmy Carter. Even worse, Obama and his administration were unwilling to call the Middle East attacks premeditated or even terrorism, and continually (and ludicrously) sought to blame an anti-Mohammed video for the whole sorry mess. On the Sunday talk shows, the president's U.N. ambassador claimed the action in Libya was "not a premeditated" attack. She was quickly repudiated by the Libyan president, who stated categorically that there was "no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined." And CNN and others reported that U.S. diplomats in Libya had been warned about the rapidly deteriorating situation three days before it occurred.

Now, we have also learned that al Qaeda appears to have been involved in Libya, as even Mrs. Clinton seems to finally concede, and a released Gitmo detainee was involved as well.

President Obama, bear in mind, did not attend a single daily intelligence briefing leading up to this explosion.

Do you think that this presidential negligence mattered?

Obama's defenders, naturally, are arguing to the contrary. In moments like this, they know what to do: investigate not Obama, but those who dare to investigate Obama.

One of them is Glenn Kessler, fact-checker at the Washington Post. Kessler has weighed in on this battle over the brief -- that is, Obama's habitual absence from his daily intel briefings. Kessler is arguing, contrary to the likes of myself, the Government Accountability Institute, and Marc Thiessen of the Post op-ed page, that Obama's absence at these meetings doesn't matter. Kessler uses historical comparisons from previous presidents to make his case, and sometimes makes a defensible to decent case -- while other times not.

For instance, Kessler notes of President Richard Nixon: "Richard Nixon also had few, if any, oral briefings and instead received his intelligence from the morning memo of his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger." Kessler cites a CIA history of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), which says of Nixon: "Throughout the Nixon presidency, the PDB was delivered by courier to Kissinger's office. Each day Kissinger delivered to the President a package of material that included the PDB along with material from the State Department, the White House Situation Room, the Joint Chiefs, and others. Nixon would keep the material on his desk, reading it at his convenience throughout the day. Feedback to the Agency typically was provided by Kissinger directly to the DCI."

So, Nixon apparently didn't meet every day with his intel briefers, though he did meet with Henry Kissinger, his chief foreign-policy and national-security adviser.

Of course, Richard Nixon also entered the presidency with far more foreign-policy experience than Barack Obama. For eight years from 1953-61, Nixon travelled the world as the most active vice president in foreign policy in history (up to that time). He further burnished those credentials throughout the 1960s as a private citizen thinking and writing (extensively) about the world.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, wasn't nearly as steeped in foreign policy. And so, as Kessler notes, Ford did indeed maintain a daily intel meeting: "Gerald Ford, who became president when Nixon resigned, decided to add an oral briefing from a CIA official as his first meeting of the morning so he would be better prepared for foreign-policy discussions with Kissinger, who had become Secretary of State."

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, scrapped the briefing. Kessler writes: "Jimmy Carter scrapped the oral briefing and instead relied on a one-on-one meeting with his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski."

Kessler next deals with Reagan, who he dismisses with the standard, mistaken liberal caricature of Reagan from 30 years ago, which, frankly, I had thought we finally dispatched to the ash-heap of history. Not in some quarters, I guess. (Kessler clearly doesn't read my books on Reagan.)

Kessler's general point, however, is well taken. He contends that much of this controversy may be a matter of semantics, based on whether the president is getting an "intel" briefing from intel officials or from national-security officials. He adds, "Clearly, different presidents have structured their daily briefing from the CIA to fit their unique personal styles. Many did not have an oral briefing, while three -- two of whom are named Bush -- preferred to deal directly with a CIA official. Obama appears to have opted for a melding of the two approaches, in which he receives oral briefings, but not as frequently as his predecessor."

Obama reportedly more often reads his daily intel brief (on paper) than he actually meets with intel officials.

Note that Kessler is assuming -- as is the Obama White House -- that President Obama carefully reads his paper briefings and fully understands them, with no need for follow-up or dialogue with the experts. They're banking on a foreign-policy brilliance bordering on omniscience from Obama, which, given his complete lack of experience in foreign affairs, is completely unjustified.

Most importantly, what Kessler and other Obama defenders are missing is the crucial dynamic that is the post-9/11 world. Consider: it's really inexcusable that Barack Obama would miss so many intel briefings not only over the past four years, but especially the most recent year and, most shockingly, in the literal week prior to 9/11 -- while he was campaigning, cavorting with celebrities, and as the Middle East exploded in some of the worst images since the protests in Iran in 1979. And now we continue to learn how little Obama and his team understood about the roots of the recent conflagration, particularly in Libya.

If Kessler and President Obama's defenders think I'm wrong about this, then I ask them to consider a basic question: What if the president we're talking about here wasn't Barack Obama, but George W. Bush? What would they be saying then? Think about that one, liberals.

Oh, and as Marc Thiessen and the Government Accountability Institute now note, Obama is suddenly attending his daily intel briefings. Hmmm. Sure, that's no doubt a response to political criticism. But do you think -- on the heels of Libya, Egypt, and all else -- that maybe Obama feels like he might have been missing something?
_______________________________________

To read another article by Paul Kengor, click here.

Obama Administration to Defense Contractors: No Layoff Notices Until After Election, Please

Obama Administration to Defense Contractors: No Layoff Notices Until After Election, Please
By Kate Hicks
9/29/2012

In an effort to make the economy look a little rosier than it is, the Obama administration is basically coercing defense contractors so as to prevent news of layoffs hitting voters before the election. With sequestration about to result in some major cuts to the defense budget, contractors will lose government business -- and that means, employees will lose jobs. But to prevent poor numbers ahead of the November election, the Obama administration has made it very, well, fiscally unwise for companies to issue layoff notices too early.

The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.

But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”

“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”

The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.

Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.


Basically, the government has tried to circumvent some inevitable bad news in an attempt to give the economy an artificial cushion. It's worth noting the Obama administration's duplicity, as well as the terrible effects of its policies.
________________________________________

To read another article by Kate Hicks, click here.

The Chevy Volt: One Part Social Security, Two Parts Postal Service

The Chevy Volt: One Part Social Security, Two Parts Postal Service
By John Ransom
9/30/2012

Georgia Boy wrote: Actually, President Obama has not raised taxes on anybody, but I think he will raise taxes on the wealthiest (back to historic levels) when he gets his second term. That said, Ransom is just another Rat-wing speculation, pretty much full of bovine manure. -France’s “No Limit” Tax Perfect for Zero

Dear Comrade Boy Georgia,

You’re right about Obama wanting to bring taxes to historic levels, although like most liberals you don’t understand what you are saying. Still, rest assured, if you did understand what you said about taxes at historic levels, you’d be for that too.

And that’s really the problem with modern liberalism: It’s a creed with solutions designed to provide pre-determined outcomes. Now, if they could only find the problems in need of their solutions.

Faultroy wrote: It is unfortunate that Ransom is so blinded that he cannot see that it is neither Obama nor Hollande that is doing this. It is a percentile of people in the USA and France that is promoting this. Ransom forgets that France is a social democracy and the USA is a republican democracy. If you are going to blame anyone, blame the voters in their respective countries. What Mr. Ransom should be doing is railing against the people not those they elect to bidding. We should further ask Mr. Ransom to stop being a mouthpiece for the establishment Repubs. -France’s “No Limit” Tax Perfect for Zero

Dear Comrade Faultroy,

I don’t even know where to start with you.

Oh, yes; Here it is: I’m not a mouthpiece for anyone, let alone establishment Republicans.

But I’ll play along for the sake of the entertainment value.

So you’d like for some entity to run a political campaign that blames voters?

“Vote for me, ‘cause you suck”?

Is that the idea?

Catchy bumper sticker, but isn’t that the campaign Carter ran in ’76 and Obama is resurrecting?

Ericynot wrote: As I understand Obama's tax proposals, they are to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 / year back to where they were before Bush lowed them in 2001 and 2003. The Bush tax cuts were sold to Congress as temporary measures, so why should they not be put back? That was the deal to begin with. Obama also wants to tax capital gains as ordinary income. That seems right to me, and almost all of my income is from capital gains. Income is income. Why should some of it be taxed at a different rate?

The real solution? Dump the income tax and move to the FairTax (on consumption). -France’s “No Limit” Tax Perfect for Zero

Dear Comrade Y,

Face facts Y: Democrats in Congress extended the tax cuts and Obama approved the extensions…twice.

You know why? Because it’s really hard to make the argument that you are concerned with bringing in more government revenue when your tax policy is designed to bring in less in the interest of “fairness.”

Under Bush government revenues by 2005 had recovered from 9/11 so at they approximated 2001 receipts. By 2007, government revenue was $200 billion higher than 2005. Under Obama, we are still below the government revenue receipts from 2001. What Bush did on tax policy brought more money into the system. Obama would do well to cut taxes, not raise them as he has.


Why do you American Socialists have such a big problem with others making a ton of money when it will actually provide you more government revenue to fund the programs for the poor people you say you care about?

How long do you think a government with economic policies that foster social outcomes at the expense of the economy as a whole, government revenues as a whole, the wealth of the nation as a whole, last?

I’d say the third week of January 2013.

Yulee wrote: Sir and I say that losely obama was handed this screwed up economy from one george bush who got our country into such extreme debt I don't know if you remember his huge credit card press conferance but the moment I saw that I knew what kind of mentality the bush years were going to be on sept 11 alcada blew up some real estate here in america so what does bush do go after alcada no he invades iraq and our grandchildern will still be paying for that but that's ok because patriotic company's like halaburtan ha ha made a huge profit back in ww1 or ww2 that company would have been called a war profiteer and the leaders tryed in coart and found guilty and punished at the same time the great leader mitt romney had a little company called bane interprizes who liqudaed so many little bussiness acros america and out sorced all those jobs to china and india etc that he destroyed the middle class so be a real reporter and tell the truth not the party line you big fat liar -Obama’s God Fails Him Again

Dear Comrade Yulee,

The period; capitalization; complete sentences; spell check. These and many other innovations have been brought to you over the last 7,000 years of literary history sponsored in part by Halliburton.

That said, lets get to the meat of your argument.

Fat? Yes, guilty.

Liar? Sure, in a Mark Twain sort of way.

More than that, I’ll let readers decide.

CRW wrote: I think most of the public is too dumb to appreciate the sarcasm in this article. I think that most people will take your words at face value and believe what you have said. Hence I feel this is a POOR way to get your message across. -Obama’s God Fails Him Again

Dear Comrade CRW,

I think that you need to get your own column and write things dumbly to appeal to the dumb people you want to reach. Hence, I feel that this is a GOOD way to get your message across.

Ootvos wrote: If the wealthy understand economics, why did the banking system collapse? Many wealthy persons are also crooks. It's the best way to get wealthy. Financier now means manipulator of other peoples' money. -Obama’s God Fails Him Again

Dear Comrade Ootvos,

Many poor people are also crooks. It’s one of the best ways to stay poor actually. But being poor or rich is incidental to being a criminal.

Wealthy people may be clients of the banking system, but then so are you.

By your logic, poor people understand economics better because they have never caused a banking system to collapse. Dogs aren’t criminals and have never caused a banking system to collapse. In your world, maybe we should just put dogs in charge of our money.

If you were arguing that maybe we should send more dogs to Congress, or make a Labrador Retriever president, you might have had me.

Jose wrote: All religions have done more harm than good. Wars have been fought solely on religious believes. My Rx.believe in god but have no church-religion. All religions endoctrinate and the main message is to fear god. Based on fear and punishment. -Obama’s God Fails Him Again

Dear Comrade Jose,

As a type of reader you annoy me more than any other.

Pick up a freakin’ book and read about the world around you.

I thought agnostics and atheists were supposed to be “fact” based people? Isn’t science your religion?

If you added up all the people who died from all the wars gone before, including religious wars, it wouldn’t come close to the horror that the atheistic, materialist regimes of the 20th Century produced.

So just in sheer numbers, you are in fact wrong.

231 million people died in the 20th Century from war and famine related to war, including civil war according to a study by Cornell. The total number of people who had lived on the earth by 1900 was 1.6 billion. To match the massacre from the 20th Century, all other populations in previous century would have had to sustain 14 percent fatalities from war.

Whole armies that go into battle don’t sustain 14 percent casualties.

Then there is the matter of religion’s contribution to peace and refinement of humanity.

From: Godless Morality? Why Judeo-Christianity Is Necessary for Human Rights:

Some prominent thinkers who are neither religious nor even politically conservative — most recently the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, who is both an atheist and a leftist — have expressed the view that the values of individual rights, moral equality, and human dignity might not survive the decline of the Judeo-Christian cultural framework within which they first developed. And there are very good reasons for believing that there's an essential connection between those values and the framework in question — a connection that ought to lead even non-believers to hope for the revival of the religious traditions of Western civilization. A thoroughly secularized Europe will not long remain a free and civilized Europe.

Scott S wrote: Please explain exactly how Quantitative Easing prints more money. - Obama Owns These Oil Prices

Dear Comrade S,

Money isn’t printed anymore because most of it is just a digital entry in a computer.

But where does the Federal Reserve Bank get the money to buy back U.S. Treasuries?

Well they just create it out of thin air. And they can do that too. They are the reserve bank for the entire banking system:

From the BBC talking about the UK’s Central Bank, but the principle applies:

These days the Bank doesn't have to literally print money - it is all done electronically.

However, economists would still argue that QE is the same principle as printing money as it is a deliberate expansion of the central bank's balance sheet and the monetary base.

This is why you see the value of currencies for countries do this go down.

“The Fed ceased publishing M-3,” writes Shadowstats, “its broadest money supply measure, in March 2006. The SGS M-3 Continuation estimates current M-3 based on ongoing Fed reporting of M-3’s largest components (M-2, institutional money funds and partial large time deposits) and proprietary modeling of the balance.”


The chart records only the rate at which the money supply is GROWING, not the money supply. There was a very brief period in 2010 when they money supply actually contracted, but otherwise the printing presses have been active.

When the economy is growing sluggishly less than 2 percent and you are increasing the money supply by 10-20 percent, the value of your dollar will go down.

Yactsman388 wrote: 81% of the "speculators" are nothing but bettors at the crude casino never touching the oil, never intending to touch the oil. Taking physical delivery of the oil would create a major expense and problems they don't need. - Obama Owns These Oil Prices

Dear Comrade Boat Snob,

Here’s a fact that won’t penetrate your skull, but I say it for the benefit of others.

On every trade, including those of speculation, there is another person on the other side either buying or selling. The relative value that each of the counterparties put on a thing being bought or sold determines the price, not the mere fact that people are speculators.

Having said that, there is a high degree of speculation in the markets, especially for oil, gold and other assets.

You know who their banker is? Barack Obama.

Two reasons why we are seeing oil prices remain high even though demand is coming down: 1) Central banks under direction of politicians like Obama are printing more money and that causes prices of assets to go up and currency values go down; and 2) There is more money out there as money supply chasing a smaller pools of assets around like gold and oil, meaning prices will go up.

Either way, it’s Obama’s fault.

Everyononesfacts4usall wrote: Dropout rate is correct. This seems about average across the US for a district that has 87% of students at or below poverty rate. Never understood why people care where others send their kids to school. The interesting thing here is that teachers are more likely to send kids to public schools than others with the same financial status. This is something I know, but don't particularly care about but Ransom & Kevlar I think will. -You Can't Teach Liberals Anything

Dear Comrade 4,

33 percent of students fall at or below poverty in Chicago. Could you at least not just make up “facts”?

I care where public schools teachers send their kids because it’s their political machine- the union- that has turned public schools into crap machines.

This is how stupid these people are. The Chicago Teachers Union cries that “42 percent of Chicago’s elementary schools lack full funding for arts and music teachers,” says Thinkprogress.org. Maybe it’s me, but shouldn’t the CTU be more concerned that only 20 percent of students are proficient at math and reading?

Seriously, we’ve public schools all the resources they need to teach our kids. If we left kids on their own in an empty classroom with books they’d probably produce a better outcome than what we are paying for.

Public schools in America need to start doing their job.

Dbrynes wrote: Lies. All lies. The CBO assumes the only difference, or benefit to electric engines is too save money on gas. But all else is NOT equal. All the other facts listed in this article were wrong as well. Apparently it is accepted in journalism to reference other articles or news even if the facts are wrong. This has happened repeatedly with the "losing $50k" on each Volt GM sells. This fact has already been debunked as that figure includes the fixed costs in production costs. The fixed costs were already spent. You don't keep losing that money on each sale of a car. - Even War and Rumors of War Can't Save Chevy Volt

Dear Comrade D,

Sure you keep losing your fixed costs. You lose your fixed costs until you recoup those costs. Duh. You have to see return on investment when you “invest” money into a new project like the Volt.

There are other products they could build with that money. Or here’s an idea: Maybe they could have paid the taxpayers back with the money?

No one would care if they were losing a little money if they could accomplish their own goals, or even tell the truth.

But they can’t do either.

For the Volt, they aren’t hitting their sales goals; they aren’t hitting their financial goals. They put out a press release telling us that sales for the Volt are at historic highs, yet neglect to mention that they have dropped the price 25 percent?

As a government program, the Volt will have to fit somewhere between Social Security and the US Post Office.

That said, the Volt would make an excellent, all-electric, US Postal stamp, collectors edition.

As a car though, it sucks.

Jerome41 wrote: Ransom is a joke. His beliefs have led to drug lords unleashing violence in Mexico and the U.S. He ignores growing support for legalizion of marijuana in the U.S. Recent polls show even majority support for outright legalization of marijuana. The fact is marijuana is very easily acquired on the black market by teens, because it is illegal. There is no regulation so drug dealers don't check I.D.s You want to continue a losing policy that costs us billions and destroys constitutional rights, than keep right on doing what Ransom says. If you say, enough, than he should be ignored. -Mile High Idea: Smoke Dope, Build Schools

Dear Comrade Jerome,

Sorry I don’t like pot. I have an aversion to substances that have links to mental illness.

I want the government out of the pot business and I want the sale of pot to have nothing to do with funding schools or anything to do with children.

You want to decriminalize marijuana, go ahead.

I won’t do it.

That’s it for this week.

V/r,

JR
_____________________________________________

To read another article by John Ransom, click here.

Top 10 Obama 
Mideast mistakes

Top 10 Obama 
Mideast mistakes
By: Human Events
9/29/2012 05:16 AM

Despite Barack Obama’s view that his presidency would repair relations with the Muslim world, America’s standing on the Arab street has never been lower.

1. Egypt policy

The administration has been consistently one-step behind events in crafting an Egypt policy. The White House’s initial backing of President Hosni Mubarak lost any support it might have gained from the crowds in Tahrir Square. Then the United States shocked its Mideast allies by pulling support from the Egyptian leader. The United States is now faced with a hostile regime in Cairo, where a Muslim Brotherhood-headed government could hardly be bothered to act when a mob tried to overrun the U.S. embassy.

2. Iran nuclear program

During his 2008 campaign, Obama posited that the Iranian leadership was bellicose mostly in reaction to misguided policies of the Bush administration. Unlike his predecessor, he would be willing to sit down and talk with the mullahs, confident that his powers of persuasion would convince them to lay down their nuclear ambitions. Four years later, Obama seems has been more concerned about cutting back our nuclear arsenal than trying to stop Tehran.

3. Diplomatic security

How could a U.S. ambassador be at an unsecured consulate in a hostile location in the Arab world on the anniversary of September 11? Christopher Stevens’ murder by a terror mob need could have been avoided if the U.S. heeded the warnings that violence was afoot. The State Department had even issued a travel alert to Americans about going to Libya, yet the consulate had minimal security.

4. Libya explanation

Long after the entire world knew that the strike on the Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack, the Obama administration continued its laughable explanation that the assault was solely the result of a spontaneous mob enraged by an anti-Islamic film. As Sen. John McCain pointed out, protesters don’t usually bring rocket-propelled grenades to a political rally.

5. Disdain for Israel

The one ally the United States could always count on in the Middle East—Israel—has consistently gotten the shaft from the White House. Obama has shown nothing if not disdain for the Jewish state, at one point offending Israeli officials by urging a return to 1967 borders. Now Obama can’t even find time in his schedule for a face-to-face meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

6. Leading from behind in Libya

Hillary Clinton asked, “How can this happen in a country we helped to liberate?” when the U.S. ambassador was murdered. The answer goes back to the method of liberation—Obama’s sanctioning of NATO air strikes. Little regard was given to the make-up of the rebels that finally steamed-rolled to victory who are vying for power.

7. Iran protests

Before the Arab Spring, there were the Iranian protests of 2009, where any assistance from Washington, could have helped to tip the balance of power away from the hard-line Islamist leaders. Instead, Obama was still convinced of his own power to sweet-talk Ahmadinejad and he left the nascent democracy movement out to dry.

8. Syria muddle

That the Syrian uprising has turned into a crisis reminiscent of the Cold War, with Russia and China teaming against the West to support the Assad regime, is a sign that Obama’s “reset” with the Kremlin is headed to the dustbin of history. The Obama administration truly is leading from behind in Syria, with no real strategy to influence the outcome, deal with its aftermath or, mostly importantly, advance U.S. interests.

9. Hurt sensibilities

After the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was breached by an unruly mob, the diplomatic staff put out a statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims”—referring to the anti-Muslim film the crowd was protesting. While Obama later distanced himself from the statement, it is not surprising that an embassy under his watch would offer such drivel, as the placating of Muslims seems to be engrained in the administration’s DNA.

10. Cairo hubris

The hubris of Barack Obama is astonishing. Who else would actually believe that a speech to the Arab world would somehow persuade Muslims everywhere to set aside their hatred of America? Yet Obama’s key strategic initiative in the Middle East was going to Cairo in June 2009, where he sought a “new beginning” with Islam. The speech seems almost quaint today, talking about his own common bond to the faith during his childhood in Indonesia, where now mobs are burning him in effigy.
________________________________________

To read another Top Ten article by Human Events, click here.

New Romney ad features Obama’s ‘war on coal’

New Romney ad features Obama’s ‘war on coal’
By: Audrey Hudson
9/28/2012 12:07 PM

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has released a new television ad targeting President Barack Obama’s “war on coal” to remind voters in the key swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania the incumbent Democrat is not a fan of the industry.

The ad titled “Bankrupt” said, “President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney supports coal miners. In 2008, Barack Obama said building a coal-powered plant will bankrupt you. President Obama wages war on coal while we lose jobs to China. We can’t afford four more years.”

An estimated 2,000 in the coal industry have lost their jobs this year, another 7,000 jobs are expected to be cut if a new rule takes effect regulating stream buffer zones.

The ad recaps comments Obama made in 2008: “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”

Policies issued by the Environmental Protection Agency affecting the coal industry have so annoyed leaders of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) they have so far refused to endorse Obama for a second term.
__________________________________

To read about Obama's War on Energy, click here.

Obama gives $300 Million to Palestinians, $450 Million to Egypt

Obama to Spend $300 Million on Construction Projects… For Palestinians
By: Jim Hoft
9/29/2012 11:38 AM


Gaza protesters show their gratitude to the United States.

The Obama Administration will spend $300 million on construction projects in Gaza and the West Bank.

Gaza is controlled by Hamas terrorists.

World Net Daily reported:

The Obama administration has released details of a plan to infuse another $300 million into West Bank and Gaza construction projects, spending it deems critical toward attaining the “success of a future Palestinian state.”

Despite combined U.S. and international donor-community efforts, a significant portion of the public infrastructure currently under Palestinian Authority control remains in need of expansion or repair, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development, the USAID.

Obama, through USAID, is stepping in to meet the need as a successful Palestinian state “depends upon an infrastructure system capable of providing basic services to a growing population,” the agency said in a Statement of Work released Sept. 24.

The Local Construction Project, or LCP, on the other hand, explicitly forbids the transfer of funds to PA-owned or controlled entities – though it likewise mandates that subsequent awards are given to local contractors, thereby excluding the participation of U.S. vendors.

Despite the prohibition against the awarding of contracts to government-affiliated firms, the PA indeed will directly benefit from the LCP.


PLUS......

Obama Gives Egypt $450 Million 2 Weeks After Protesters Storm US Embassy
By: Jim Hoft
9/28/2012 10:18 PM

It’s an Obama world…


Obama gave the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government $450 million two weeks after protesters stormed the US embassy and torched the American flag.

The New York Times reported:

The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and of Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The aid is part of the $1 billion in assistance that the Obama administration has pledged to Egypt to bolster its transition to democracy after the overthrow last year of the former president, Hosni Mubarak. Its fate, however, was clouded by concerns over the new government’s policies and, more recently, the protests that damaged the American Embassy in Cairo.

The United States Agency for International Development notified Congress of the cash infusion on Friday morning during the pre-election recess, promptly igniting a smoldering debate over foreign aid and the administration’s handling of crises in the Islamic world.



Protesters destroy an American flag pulled down from the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012. Egyptian protesters, largely ultra conservative Islamists, have climbed the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, went into the courtyard and brought down the flag, replacing it with a black flag with Islamic inscription, in protest of a film deemed offensive of Islam. (AP/Mohammed Abu Zaid)

WHAT!!!! Is he fucking Insane????

The Benghazi scandal widens

The Benghazi scandal widens
By: John Hayward
9/28/2012 11:59 AM

ABC News broke the mainstream media embargo on the Obama Administration’s outrageous conduct in the Benghazi consulate attack, with a report by Jake Tapper on World News Tonight:

Over at Fox News, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was even more direct in identifying and criticizing an Obama Administration cover-up. “I think it’s because they have this narrative that they defeated al-Qaeda,” he said on Sean Hannity’s show. “They never say the words ‘Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. They want to wish it away. The President was moving on to Asia – he was going to declare this a great victory for himself, and unfortunately, this terrible act of terror intervened in their very convenient narrative.”

“This is a cover-up,” Giuliani continued, citing his long experience at unraveling cover-ups and conspiracies. “This is a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth, from an Administration that claimed it wanted to be the most transparent in history. And it’s the worst kind of cover-up: the kind of cover-up that involves our national security. This is a cover-up that involves the slaughter of four Americans. And maybe if they had been straightforward about this from the very beginning, maybe they could have quelled some of these demonstrations that took place afterwards, that also did a tremendous amount of damage.”

Giuliani was unsparing in his criticism of Obama’s empty-chair management style: “Right now, we don’t have a President. We have a candidate. It’s really a shame. The world is in turmoil. The Middle East is erupting. Every night, when I watch television, I see the failure of Obama’s policies in the Middle East – his na├»ve approach to Islamic extremist terrorism, that many of us have been warning about for a very, very long time.”

The horrendous lapses in judgment by this Administration leading up to the Benghazi attack are highlighted by the fact that, even though the Administration keeps describing the consulate as a crime scene under the control of the FBI, in reality FBI agents haven’t been able to get there yet, 15 days after the attacks… because the area is deemed too unsafe for them. But a couple of Libyan guards and an unsecured safe house were good enough for the U.S. Ambassador, even though he was known to have voiced concerns about his safety?

But the conduct of the Administration after the attacks is nothing less than a world-class scandal. There is nothing else any reputable journalist should be interrogating Obama and his minions about. President Obama has deep, difficult questions to answer about this deliberate cover-up, and the political motivations behind it.

We’ve learned that the Administration actually deleted damning State Department memos from the Internet, in which State expressed the view that it had “no credible information to suggest that al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11.”

We’ve got days of Administration shills hitting the airwaves to claim the Benghazi attack was an “Innocence of Muslims” protest that grew out of control, even though this was always a patently absurd assertion, and completely at odds with what the Libyan government said all along. We have confirmation that the Administration knew this was, in fact, a terrorist attack within 24 hours.

And the Administration was misleading Congress, not just sending White House spokesmen and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice forth, to lie into the faces of the American people. Three days after the attack, the House Intelligence Committee was fed the “out-of-control video protest” line, prompting “shocked” reactions from representatives who knew this was a false narrative, based on their own review of intelligence data.

Meanwhile, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) says the Senate Foreign Relations Committee received a “worthless” briefing, and suspects “there has to be something that they’re trying to hide or cover up.” He said the situation is “turning into something not short of Benghazi-gate.”

It’s not just Republican members of Congress saying this, either. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, which has sent a bipartisan letter to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, requesting “an accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen,” according to the Washington Examiner which notes “the letter marks the first time congressional Democrats have so directly expressed their dissatisfaction with the administration’s response to inquiries about the attacks.”

According to Time magazine, the latest mutation of the Administration’s increasingly twisted and confused spin is that the terrorists who attacked the Benghazi consulate were “seizing the opportunity presented by protests in neighboring Egypt against an American-made anti-Islamic video.” This is based on the seven-hour delay until mortars were introduced into the attack. “They went and they got their buddies and they got their most lethal weapons and they brought it to bear. And ultimately that contributed to the lethality of the attack,” said an anonymous Administration official.

Which is not at all what the Administration has been saying for the past two weeks. Obama and his people were not out there telling us that a long-planned attack on the Benghazi consulate was ramped up because the terrorists caught the news from Cairo, and realized it gave them a perfect opportunity to cook up a cover story that the Obama Administration would happily swallow and regurgitate.

That’s what Time’s Administration official is saying, right? ”Hey, Achmed, do you realize today is September 11? I had totally forgotten about that! This would be a perfect time to finally kill that pesky American ambassador. And hey, what’s this? They’re rioting in Cairo over a movie! Quick, bring the mortars! Those idiots in the Obama State Department will happily believe we’re just angry about the film. They’ll probably be telling their people about it for days. Why, I’ll bet their President will still be going on about that stupid movie when he talks to the United Nations!”
___________________________________________

To read more about the Benghazi attacks, click here.
___________________________________________

To read another article by John Hayward, click here.

West reminds voters they have an important decision to make

West reminds voters they have an important decision to make
By: John Hayward
9/28/2012 12:08 PM

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) deployed a short, very powerful campaign ad that leaves nothing but rubble where his opponent, Democrat Patrick Murphy, used to be standing. The only editorial comment I can offer is to observe that the return of terrorism and foreign policy to the electoral front burner is not doing Democrats any favors.

Click here to view:
____________________________________

To read another article about Allen West, click here.
____________________________________

To read another article by John Hayward, click here.

Forward To Yesterday

Forward To Yesterday
Friday, September 28, 2012
by Burt Prelutsky

I find it fascinating and amusing that Obama said that the GOP convention was like a re-run and should have been viewed on a black-and-white TV with rabbit ears. If I were Obama, I’m not sure if I would ever bring any sort of ears into a conversation. But that being said, if anyone is looking backwards, it’s the putz who wants to claim Clinton’s economy for his own.

But who can blame him? At this point, he’s probably ready to claim Greece’s economy for his own.

Before moving on, it should be mentioned that the booming economy of the 90s came about in spite of Bill Clinton, not because of him. The 90s boom owed more to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress that delivered tax cuts and welfare reform after the ’94 elections. Prior to that, Clinton was just as big a loon as Obama as he tried to push the unfunded HillaryCare bill on America 16 years before Obama saddled us with his own even bigger and more vile version.

The difference is that Clinton was bright enough to go along with the Republicans and, thus, get re-elected in 1996. Obama, being less of a practical politician and more of a left-wing nutjob, has continued to press for an enlarged federal government, leading to a $16 trillion national debt and an annual trillion dollar deficit and, ironically, has done his best to gut Clinton’s signature legislation, welfare reform.

David Axelrod, who could be a dead ringer for Hitler if he only trimmed his mustache, accuses the GOP of being backward-looking. But the one thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on is that we all wish the clock could be turned back. Liberals want to turn it back to the 90s, while conservatives would like to turn it all the way back to the Reagan era of the 80s.

In reminiscing about Ronald Reagan, Peggy Noonan said, “You can’t buy courage and decency, and you can’t rent a moral sense.” It’s as obvious as the ears on Obama that Reagan was a man of character. It’s why he could actually work with House Minority leader Tip O’Neill (D) to get things done for the good of the country. All that Obama does is sulk and call John Boehner (R) and duly-elected Republicans in the House obstructionists or worse.

As Noonan has said, a lot of people disagreed with Reagan’s politics, but she has never met anyone who didn’t genuinely like and respect the man. Is there anyone who believes that the same could ever be said about Barack Obama, an arrogant narcissist, who revels in the adoration of college students, Muslims, welfare recipients and the reflection in his own mirror?

Speaking of welfare recipients, Chris Matthews, who has devoted so much time to defending Obama that he could moonlight for the Secret Service, recently said, “We passed the civil rights bill, and still the country is basically white here and black there. There’s ‘hoods, there’s ghettos, and there’s whites living in the ‘burbs. It hasn’t changed a lick.”

Actually it has. Just not for people like Matthews, Holder, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson and Obama, who would be out of business if being race card-playing con men didn’t pay so darn well.

But it’s not just Matthews, who should bear a scarlet H on his forehead, denoting hypocrisy. Apparently in 2008, while trying to get Ted Kennedy’s endorsement for Hillary, Bill Clinton, in referring to Obama, said, “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” How ironic that a scant four years later, it’s Clinton who’s shlepping water for Obama.

According to Matthews, when Republicans use such terms as “welfare,” “birth certificate,” “food stamps,” “European socialism,” “Chicago” and “work requirements,” it’s actually code for black people. At least Matthews didn’t disclose our secret handshake or the password to enter our tree house.

What is truly remarkable is that liberals never feel the slightest bit of shame or embarrassment to say such stupid things when their own houses are constructed of the most fragile sort of glass. For instance, according to a recent article at WorldNetDaily, Mr. and Mrs. Matthews live in the lily white suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. At last report, Chevy Chase has a black population of roughly five percent. Also, he and the missus have never contributed money to the campaign of a black political candidate, except for Mr. Obama.

Matthews, who came to fame when he channeled his inner teenage girl and confessed that listening to an Obama speech sent a tingle up his leg, reminds me of the guy who took a Rorschach test and claimed to see a naked woman in every single ink blot. When the doctor concluded that in his professional opinion, the subject was suffering from a sexual fixation and clearly required therapy, the patient protested, saying, “Hey, I’m not the one with all the dirty pictures!”

Finally, we come to Antonio Villaraigosa, soon to be the unlamented ex-mayor of Los Angeles. In evaluating the GOP convention and its large contingent of Hispanic speakers, he announced, “You can’t just trot out a brown face or a Spanish surname and expect that people are going to vote for your party.”

That is a message he should have delivered to the Democrats when they decided to make him the chairman of their convention for no other reason than this second-rater happens to have a brown face and a Spanish surname. This is a guy who became a union organizer and then a politician only after failing to pass the bar exam four different times. Sometimes it seems as if politics only exists in order to provide a fallback position for really dumb people.

The Republicans featured Hispanic speakers because decent and remarkable conservatives such as Susana Martinez, Mel Martinez, Luis Fortuno, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, actually hold major political offices.

The Democrats, on the other hand, were so desperate to have an Hispanic presence that they stuck Villaraigosa front and center in spite of the fact that an ethics investigation found him guilty of accepting -- and not paying taxes on -- free tickets worth tens of thousands of dollars to the Academy Awards, various rock concerts and courtside seats at Laker games.

In addition, there’s the $68,000-a-year in tax dollars that go to his daughter for answering his phone. And lest you think that greed and nepotism alone define our city’s mayor, there’s the fact that over the years, he has had any number of tawdry affairs, one that ended with the birth of a child, another that involved the wife of a friend, and still another with a TV reporter that brought an end to his 20-year marriage.

Is it any wonder that with a track record like that, Antonio Villaraigosa stands a very good chance of being the Democratic standard bearer in the 2016 presidential election?
____________________________________________

To read another article by Burt Prelutsky, click here.

The Zombies Are Coming!

The Zombies Are Coming!
Friday, September 28, 2012
by Burt Prelutsky

Let’s face it, there is definitely something very spooky about liberals. They’re a lot like those creatures in horror movies, the undead, who are always lurking around looking to turn normal people into vampires or zombies. They’re often looking for human brains, which, God knows they could certainly use, but it’s not for themselves, but to install in the heads of monsters they’ve cobbled together in their basements.

In the movies at least, people can generally avoid running into them so long as they stay out of haunted houses, cemeteries and dark cellars. In real life, it’s much more difficult because they’re everywhere. Turn on your TV and there’s Steny Hoyer, Joe Biden or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, saying something so stupid, it’s frightening. And if you happened to find yourself in a cemetery at night and bumped into Harry Reid, wouldn’t you assume that he was there to oversee your burial?

Scariest of all is Barack Obama because he’s the one with the power to create the most mischief. But what I don’t get is why people are making such a big thing of a 1998 video in which he announced that he was in favor of the redistribution of wealth. Why go back 14 years? He said the same thing during the current century, in 2008 to be exact, to Joe the Plumber. He also famously said at about the same time that the major failing of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Movement is that neither dealt with the redistribution of wealth.

This is the same palooka who said that his energy policy would send prices soaring, and whose energy czar said he wished gas prices would go to $10-a-gallon in order to hasten the day when green energy would be our only option.

It just seems to me that going back 14 years in order to nail this putz with his own words is sort of like the other side trying to portray Romney as Al Capone because he bullied some kid in high school. I mean, Obama has not only done his level best to destroy the coal and oil industries in America, thus helping to double gas prices at the pump over the past four years, but his economic policies have drained thousands of dollars from the net worth of the average American, kept the unemployment rate at record highs, and, for good measure, is one of the few people who has ever voted in favor of partial-birth abortions. Talk about your ghouls. This schmuck even gives the Mummy the willies.

Even in the area of foreign policy, Obama can’t help showing off his incompetence. First, he kicked things off by going to Cairo in 2009, apologizing for American exceptionalism, and kissing the behinds of the assembled Arabs and Muslims. Then, when in spite of four years of bowing and scraping, those same people showed their contempt for him by storming our embassy in Libya and murdering four Americans, including our ambassador, he denied it was an act of terrorism. He even made his ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, go on every TV show except Dancing With the Stars, to announce that it was a spontaneous uprising brought about by a video that was seen by fewer people than Catwoman.

For eight days, poor Jay Carney had to tell the White House press corps that there was no possible way to tell that the attack had been planned and carried out by Muslim terrorists. And then, on the ninth day, voila, there was the Press Secretary not only admitting that it was a terrorist attack, but that it was, of all things, “self-evident”!

Even I sympathized with the boyish-looking Carney. He was probably hired in the first place when Robert Gibbs stepped down because, unlike Gibbs, he looked like he could be trusted near a playground filled with kids. However, he has lost his innocence over the past couple of years. Dealing with the Libyan kerfuffle, he had to spin so hard and so fast for Obama that he finally screwed himself into the floor until all that could be seen of him was the top of his head and a pair of horn-rimmed glasses.

While Obama continues to take bows for giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, someone should constantly remind him that anyone, including Romney, I and my aunt Sophie, would have given the same order. What none of us would have done, however, was to display such weakness and to send such mixed messages to our enemies in North Africa and the Middle East that a bunch of third world thugs would have reason to believe they could burn down our embassy and slaughter Americans with impunity.

For all his various failings, when Islamic terrorists attacked America on 9/11/01, George Bush went to war. When Islamic terrorists attacked America on 9/11/12, Barack Obama said they weren’t really attacking us and they weren’t even terrorists; they were actually just a bunch of film critics who disliked a certain movie and, instead of giving it a really bad review, decided to go on a killing spree.

I guess we can only hope that these folks never get wind of Mommie Dearest, Heaven’s Gate or Freddy Got Fingered, or it could be the end of life on earth as we’ve known it.
___________________________________________

To read another article by Burt Prelutsky, click here.

Taxpayers Spent $1.4 Billion Last Year on the Obama Family...

Taxpayers Spent $1.4 Billion Last Year on the Obama Family... 24 Times the Royal Family

“biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever”

9/27/12

In his book Presidential Perks Gone Royal: Your Taxes Are Being Used For Obama's Re-election, Keith Gray argues the taxpayers are on the hook for $1.4 billion in the last year to pay for all the perks the Obama family gets.

From theDC:

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled airline.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20120927009-taxpayers-obama.html

Friday, September 28, 2012

The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style

The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style

Obama administration, including his czars and his closest Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. Using the media to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals.
- Doug Hagmann, Tuesday, May 8, 2012

HomelandSecurityUs.com

The Contact

It was not the proverbial 3:00 a.m. phone call, but close enough. And it was not made to the White House, but to my house, which is not white, nor is it in DC. It was about 2:30 a.m. on 25 April 2012, and the call itself was somewhat unexpected. I had anticipated the telephone call from my DHS insider much earlier the previous day, but our schedules didn’t synch up. I was traveling on an investigative assignment, while my source was in meetings all day. I had just fallen asleep, and was slumbering no more than 20 minutes when the phone rang.

In most households, a ringing phone at that time of night causes concern for everyone who hears it. In my household, it seems to surprise only my surly, 140 pound light-sleeping German Shepherd. He let out an objective grunt as I stepped over him to take the call in another room. It was “Rosebud,” the code name given my insider source.

About Rosebud

Just a little bit here about my source and his “super-secret code name.” I’ve known this government insider since 1979, when he first became a municipal patrol officer. He took a job in a bigger city and had a very successful run as a cop. Before retirement and after the events of 9/11, he was tapped by the feds, where he worked in various capacities under the umbrella of DHS. He worked his way up, and suddenly found himself in what he terms the inner sanctum of the “TEC” building. TEC, he explains, is an acronym for what he calls “The Estrogen Challenged,” which houses the upper echelon of the Department of Homeland Security. I’ll leave it at that.

As far as his code name, it originates from an incident that occurred at the end of the disco era. It is something that we both privately laugh about, but rarely ever talk about. His “code name” is known to him, me, and at the time, a young woman who has since vanished amid the glitter of disco balls and constant replays of the Bee Gees in a dark nightclub some 32 years ago, and has no “cloak and dagger” origins.

But he is real, his position serious, and his knowledge vast. Unfortunately, that’s what makes the whole situation frightening and deadly serious.

The information

It began on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 with a 45-minute interview on TruNews with Rick Wiles when I first disclosed the information I received the previous week from my source. The information I relayed “went viral,” as they say, across the internet.

To support the statements I made during that interview, I am showing my handwritten notes taken contemporaneously during our conversation. My notes consist of two pages and are, at various points, admittedly difficult to decipher. I ask that points not be deducted for my penmanship given the time of the morning which they were taken.

According to my source, there is talk among the highest levels of the uppermost echelon of the Department of Homeland Security, which he describes as effectively under the control of Barack Hussein Obama. During this call, he said that the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that “a civil war” is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it,” stated my source.

“The DHS takes their marching orders from the Obama administration, from Obama himself, but mostly from his un-appointed czars. And Jarrett, especially Valerie Jarrett. Don’t think for a minute that the administration is doing anything to stabilize events in the U.S. They are revolutionaries, and revolutionaries thrive on chaos,” he added.

My source stated that he has not seen things this bad since he began working within DHS. “It’s like they [DHS agency heads] don’t care about what the American people see or feel about what the DHS agencies are doing. They figure that if the average American will put up with being “sexually groped and nuked” just to fly, they’ll accept almost anything. “That’s why their actions are becoming more overt. “It’s in your face and the brass actually chuckle about it” said my source.

New Information

Astounded by the information my source provided “going viral,” I spoke to him again early Sunday morning. This was a scheduled telephone call (as noted on page 2 of my notes) based on a high level meeting of DHS personnel that was scheduled for and took place in Chantilly, Virginia, on Saturday, 5 May 2012. He hoped to provide me with more information to supplement that which he already given. Although he was not personally present, his source was. While he would not say who was at the meeting on Saturday or give its precise location, he said that the many of the names would be recognizable. He spoke to his source late Saturday night.

I contacted him on his cellular phone early Sunday morning to get the promised update.

“Geez, nice job on getting the word out about what’s really going on at DHS and in this administration,” were the first words out of his mouth, followed by “thanks a lot.” I asked him why he would be thanking me. “I just wanna’ tell you that I’m going to have to hire someone to start my car, and I’m surely not going for any rides in small planes in the immediate future,” he said with a bit of nervous laughter. “I hope no one finds out who I am or it’s going to be more than my pension I’ll have to worry about.”

“I can tell you word is getting out that people are starting to wake up, which is causing a lot of ‘pissed off brass.’ I can’t tell if they are more desperate or upset about the exposure, but the tone is starting to become a lot more tense. I hope that we’re having something to do with that,” he added.

With that, he provided me with additional information to supplement that which he already given me on 25 April. For clarity purposes, I have combined the information together from both contacts. The following information includes the updated information provided to me Sunday morning.

Obama the revolutionary

Metaphorically speaking, there’s a revolution going on in the U.S., propped up by three legs. Economic chaos, chaos through racial division, and chaos through class division, all joined by one core element: Barack Hussein Obama and his stable of unelected czars. Obama is using the lessons learned in 1968 as the template for 2012, and many of those who were active in the late 1960s are now calling the shots for 2012.

“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S.,” stated my source. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source. He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives. “It’s like Fast & Furious” but in the social realm,” he added.

“Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”

“Mentioned at the meeting Saturday were methods to use pawns to simulate the rioting in the Arab Spring countries, but to the benefit of this administration. A controlled chaos thing,” stated my source. They envision rioting starting in the urban areas first, such as New York and other major cities, followed by a disruption of business and commerce. This will allow the DHS to mobilize their various teams into the streets of America without objection of the people,” stated my source.

“They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by rioting and unrest. They understand we are the most well-armed nation in the world, yet they are aware of our vulnerabilities and intend to fully exploit them,” he added. The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic. This is the run-up to the 2012 elections, or perhaps causing enough chaos to delay them - indefinitely.”

One statement that rattled me more than anything was that a great number of those already in power, whether in appointed or elected positions, actually want to see Obama stay in power, according to this source. “This is what we’ve been working toward and we’re closer now than we’ve ever been. If we lose now, we might not have another chance.”

This chilling common goal also explains the lack of interest in the Constitutional legitimacy of Obama. It is common knowledge that Obama is not an American, and neither is his agenda. Of course, criticism of his bona-fides feeds into the cries of racism, despite the massive fraud perpetrated on the American people. Party lines are meaningless when the common objective is the revolutionary overtaking of America.

Obama, the professor of Keynesian economics.

“The Obama administration is working closely with Bernanke, Geithner and others not to save our economy, but to outright destroy it. He is not the first or only one to try this, but the most effective and most vetted for that purpose. Do you actually think that the fact that Timothy Geithner’s father worked with Obama’s mother in Indonesia was coincidental,” stated my source rhetorically. “What we’re seeing now is the fourth quarter of a game that started long ago, which also currently involves the Clintons. Obama would not be where he is if it were not for the Clintons, and to a lesser extent, Bush, but that’s for other reasons. Don’t be fooled, the Clintons never left or lost power,” he added.

“There are file drawers full of papers, heavily guarded papers at the ‘TEC building’ so I can only imagine what’s in them, about international financial dealings going back decades. I do know, or at least I was told, that they involve organizations that are the so-called conspiracy fringe groups, such as the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, and people including George Soros, Henry Kissinger, and current leaders of big industry. Some are fossils. They’ve been around a long time. Others are up-and-coming. They’ve got one thing in common, though, and that is to put in place a global system of governance, including a common currency. Economics is a huge part of this revolution, and they want to replace the dollar, to see it collapse. They expect, that is, they are working toward this very goal, and when this happens, it will cause chaos like never seen before in the history of this country.”

“Why do you think Jon Corzine is not only walking around, but heavily involved in Obama fundraising? They know it’s just a matter of time that Europe will implode economically, and when it does, start counting the days before we see massive hyperinflation and the ultimate collapse of the U.S. dollar,” stated this insider. “What will it look like in the streets of America when the general population realizes that there is no money? That’s right, chaos.”

Obama & the planned racial divide

According to this insider, the Trayvon Martin case is just the tip of the iceberg. “You certainly don’t have to be a genius to understand how Obama and his team played the public on this issue, and it’s far from over. But that’s not the sole element of what we’ll see this summer.”

Remember the shots fired at the White House not too long ago?” asked my source. "There was an element of outrage that was squandered, according to ‘team Obama.’ In fact, Obama and some of his closest advisors, especially [Valerie] Jarrett were incredibly angered that the outrage was seemingly tempered. It should have been an opportunity to use our force against the Tea Parties, the gun clingers, the Constitutionalists, and everyone who has complained about Obama. DHS should have stepped in right then, and used that event to start the clampdown,” this source stated about White House comments.

This source stated that from that point on, the DHS must become more responsive and aggressive.

"Watch for a false flag event against Obama or his family, something that will outrage ‘black America.’ It will be carefully choreographed, but executed in a manner that will evoke the ugliest of reactions and create racial chaos in this country that will make the Watts riots, 1968 and the Rodney King riots pale in comparison. That’s the third leg in this.”

The planned end-game

Does Obama look worried about the upcoming elections? Look at his lavish vacations, his limited work schedule, and those with whom he is working. This is a very dangerous man who has, as his closest advisors, people who have orchestrated the revolutions of the 1960s. They know the “trigger points” in America.

The Obama administration, including his czars and along with his closets Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. He is using the media to his advantage to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals. He is desperately seeking a way to remain in office, even if it means the surreal prospect of an indefinite postponement of elections - if it can be pulled off. So far, he’s got the support of the majority of the DHS “brass” behind him, according to my source.

“They’re power hungry, and they want to remain in charge,” stated this source.

The “surreal” aspect of suspended elections won’t look so surreal when you see any or all of the “trigger points” take place in the not-so-distant future.

“The end-game plan for America is its destruction as a Constitutional Republic, with the assistance of the agencies under the umbrella of the DHS.”

My sourced stated one more thing that seemed to tie things together. He urged me to recall the quote by Henry Kissinger who was speaking at a Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, on 21 May 1992:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.

That threat need not be from beyond. All it might take is a world of starving, broke and desperate people.

Note: My source promised more information at a later time. Stay tuned.

Before you think this story is completely crazy, then please explain this - who do they intend to shoot?
___________________________________________

http://www.cpflorida.com/2012/07/30/possible-false-flag-obama-assasination-attempt-upcoming/
___________________________________________

Also read this pdf - very informative.

ObamaPhone Humor

ObamaPhone Humor
By Ross Kaminsky on 9.28.12 @ 12:24PM

In case you haven't heard about the federal government's free cell phone program, "Lifeline", derisively called the ObamaPhone by critics (including me), it's not a joke, even though it seems like it should be:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/where-do-obama-phones-come-from/article/2509203#.UGXHNlHZ27x

The clever people over at ThePeoplesCube.com have a new article about the ObamaPhone including some of its most important features as submitted by Twitter users.

Here then are the key features of the ObamaPhone:

It automatically rejects calls from people with a different opinion.
Every time you take a picture, it produces a grimmer image of America.
It doesn't have a plan; it just keeps telling you how bad the other guy's plan is.
When it crashes, it blames your previous phone.
All 3 AM calls go directly to voicemail.
It has a really useless app called "Biden."
Pairing it with another device sucks all the energy out of the other unit.
Type in "job search" and it gives you directions to the welfare office.
The navigation feature covers all 57 States.
The default ringtone for international calls is "I'm sorry, so sorry, please accept my apology."
The healthcare app downloads and installs itself without your permission.
When you make a call, a teleprompter pops up to help you speak.
Restaurant reviews are all written by Michelle Obama.
There are never any winners on Angry Birds.
Instagram takes two months to process a photo and you have to fill out 3 PDFs to do so.
Paypal app is replaced with ReceivePal app.
You can't find "Jerusalem" on Google maps.
It turns all your Facebook friends into enemies and all your enemies into friends.
Don't want to work? There's an app for that, too.
It automatically bows down to phones made by foreign companies.
When you watch a YouTube video, a US ambassador gets killed.
When you dial "home", it calls Kenya.
As opposed to the iPhone, it's called the mePhone.
Congressman Tim Griffin (R-AR) has a YouTube video about this outrageous program and its costs:

Click here to view:


http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/adobe-acrobat-update-sparks-violent-protests-in-muslim-world-t9706.html

_______________________________________________

To read another article by Ross Kaminsky, click here.

Obama's 'Change From the Outside' Means Community Organizing

Obama's 'Change From the Outside' Means Community Organizing
By David Limbaugh
9/28/2012

President Obama recently lamented: "You can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside." I think this statement reveals more about Obama and his plans for a second term than meets the eye.

Elaborating, Obama said, "I got elected and ... big accomplishments like health care got done ... because we mobilized the American people to speak out."

Rubbish. Obamacare was not some outside, grass-roots-driven legislative achievement. Obama could never persuade Americans to support his bill or lobby Congress to pass it. He cobbled together his majority in the most inside of insider venues -- the bowels of Congress, in secret rooms, where he twisted arms, made false promises and offered bribes to persuade congressmen to defy their constituents' wishes. He didn't persuade congressmen through reasoned arguments.

His entire adult life, from what we can best determine, Obama has always been animated by some big cause. He revels in activism and has leveraged his leadership roles in these causes to propel himself into ever-greater positions of influence, from editor of the Harvard Law Review to the Illinois Senate to the United States Senate to the presidency.

There seems to be little evidence that, once he arrived at any of these positions, he did much -- other than what he had to do -- to position himself to graduate to the next level. He wrote little as law review editor and sponsored few bills as a legislator. His focus was always on upward political mobility.

Obama's stock in trade has always been rabble-rousing, community organizing and campaigning. When it comes to actual governing, he's a fish out of water -- an alien visitor without a spaceship. It's obvious that he simply does not enjoy actually doing the jobs he is elected to do.

Don't get me wrong. Obama has not solely been concerned with acquiring power for the sake of satisfying his narcissistic appetite for attention, fame and power. As a leftist radical, he happens to fervently believe in the causes he has pursued.

But when he arrived at the highest office in the land, he still lacked skills at basic governance and disliked the mundane parts of the job, which he probably considered beneath his self-perceived calling to revolutionize America. So even as president, he's remained the persistent community organizer and the perpetual campaigner for this or that initiative, such as the stimulus and Obamacare, and then for his re-election effort.

Despite his passion for these big-ticket "reforms," he didn't want to be bothered with the details of these bills. His function was to sell the big idea and let others fill in the blanks. Beyond the broad strokes and helping his cronies, he probably had little knowledge of the specific provisions in his stimulus bill. And we mustn't forget that he never formulated his own health care bill and was prepared to adopt whichever one made it through Congress, provided it was sufficiently statist. Nancy Pelosi's statement that we'd have to find out the contents of the bill after they passed it is probably better-understood in this context.

Obama's big idea mindset also explains why he has no compunction about spending so much time on the golf course or on vacation and why he couldn't be bothered to attend many national security briefings. He's the big issue guy; let lesser mortals haggle over the "details."

But here's what's scary. Because of Obama's blind leftist ideology and his quasi-religious zeal in pursuing them, he's impervious to negative feedback, negative consequences and negative results. He looks at his stimulus bill, which didn't stimulate anything except more unemployment and higher debt, and believes -- or claims he believes -- that it worked. His economic ideas haven't changed at all. He intends to double down on his stimulus spending in a second term.

The debt, to him, is a nuisance, an aggravation and an inconvenient obstacle to his goal of fundamentally transforming America through radical schemes of redistribution via both taxation and spending. This is one of the main reasons he has blocked entitlement reform to date and would continue to do so if re-elected.

He either doesn't care about the national debt and the future financial health of this country or is in denial about the crushing effects his deficit spending would have in a second term. Either way, he intends to stay the course -- the course that heads straight for the cliff, toward national bankruptcy.

Obama's statement shows that he has learned nothing constructive from the past four years. His first-term takeaway is that he will have to be even more determined and ruthless in a second term in driving through his agenda, which he now understands can only be achieved through Alinsky tactics. So when he says change must be achieved from the outside, that is code for "community organizing" and means he'd be even less respectful of the Constitution and rule of law in a second term -- which is chilling.
____________________________________________

To read another article by David Limbaugh, click here.

Obama Versus Obama: Part IV

Obama Versus Obama: Part IV
By Thomas Sowell
9/28/2012

During the same week when the American ambassador to Libya was murdered and his dead body dragged through the streets by celebrating mobs, the President of the United States found time to go on the David Letterman show to demonstrate his sense of humor and how cool he is.

But Barack Obama did not have time to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of a nation repeatedly threatened with annihilation by Iranian leaders, who are working feverishly toward the creation of nuclear bombs.

This was an extraordinary thing in itself, something that probably no other President of the United States could have gotten away with, without raising a firestorm of criticisms and denunciations. But much of the media sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil when it comes to Barack Obama -- especially during an election year.

Nor was this public rebuff of a publicly requested meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu unique in its expression of disrespect, if not contempt, for both the man and his country. Despite his glowing assertions of his commitment to Israel, especially in speeches to American Jewish groups, Barack Obama has been working against Israel's interests from his first day in the White House. As in many other contexts, Barack Obama 1 speaks but Barack Obama 2 acts -- often in the opposite direction.

The vision in which Obama has been steeped is one in which white Western nations have oppressed and exploited non-white, non-Western nations, becoming rich and arrogant at other people's expense. It is a vision that calls out, not for justice, but for payback.

When Jeremiah Wright said, "white folks' greed runs a world in need" -- and Obama, by his own account, was moved to tears -- this captured in a few melodramatic words what a whole series of Obama's mentors and allies had been saying for decades. No wonder it resonated with him.

Despite hopes that Barack Obama's election as President of the United States would mark the beginning of a post-racial era in America, no hope was ever so completely doomed from the outset. Anyone who looks beyond Obama's soothing words about race to his record, from his joining self-segregated black students in college to his appointing Al Sharpton as a White House adviser, can see the contrast between rhetoric and reality.

Barack Obama is not the first leader of a nation whose actions reflected some half-baked vision, enveloped in lofty rhetoric and spiced with a huge dose of ego. Nor would he be the first such leader to steer his nation into a historic catastrophe.

In Barack Obama's case, the potential for catastrophe is international in scope, and perhaps irretrievable in its consequences, as he stalls with feckless gestures as terrorist-sponsoring Iran moves toward the production of nuclear bombs.

The rhetoric of Obama 1 says that he will protect Israel but the actions of Obama 2 have in fact protected Iran from an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities -- until now it is questionable whether Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities can be destroyed by the Israelis.

Those deeply buried facilities took time to build, and Obama's policies gave them that time, with his lackadaisical approach of seeking United Nations resolutions and international sanctions that never had any serious chance of stopping Iran's movement toward becoming a nuclear power. And Barack Obama had to know that.

In March, "Foreign Policy" magazine reported that "several high-level sources" in the Obama administration had revealed Israel's secret relationship with Azerbaijan, where Israeli planes could refuel to or from an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The administration feared "the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran," according to these "high-level sources." Apparently the risks of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel are not so much feared.

This leak was one of the historic and unconscionable betrayals of an ally whose very existence is threatened. But the media still saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.

The only question now is whether the American voters will wake up before it is too late -- not just for Israel, but for America.
_______________________________________________

To read another article by Thomas Sowell, click here.