Obama’s Bergdahl Fairy Tale Has Unhappy Ending

Posted on March 30th, 2015

White House Rose Garden press meeting Bergdahl Obama

EDITOR’S COMMENT: This ‘fairy tale’ provides us with two glimpses into the Obama administration mindset. First, we have a clear insight into the total incompetence of this president and of those he has surrounded himself with. Susan Rice, of course, was and continues to be one of the premier examples. Secondly, we also see the huge extent to which this administration will fabricate and spin their story, even as the facts begin to show otherwise. They pride themselves on their reliance of continuing misinformation, further distortions of the misinformation, and outright falsehoods.

By Tom Bevan

Travel back with me, dear reader, to a magical and sunny time. It was only 10 months ago, on a glorious June morning when President Obama called the White House press corps together in the Rose Garden. There, our smiling president proudly announced that the United States had secured the release of an American serviceman held captive in Afghanistan for five years. Read More..

Everything the White House Told Us about Bergdahl Was Wrong

Posted on March 27th, 2015

Bergdahl Addition Gitmo detainees

By Rick Moran

Interesting article in the Daily Beast about how the White House Bowe Bergdahl narrative completely collapsed now that he has been identified as a deserter and the war in Afghanistan has not ended.

Nancy Youssef writes that Bergdahl’s “capture, release and now charge became a parable of how narratives about the war in Afghanistan did not pan out.” Bergdahl’s release was supposed to put a triumphant explanation point on the war in AfghanistanInstead, it has highlighted the administration’s incompetence.

But the political benefits and the timing of the war both proved incorrect. The president faced immediate backlash for heralding a soldier suspected of abandoning his post. That was only further fueled when, in a June 2014 interview with CNN, Rice said Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.”

Rice’s comments could work in Bergdahl’s favor, should the convening authority looking at his case recommend a court martial, military officials conceded. It could counter the suggestion that he “is guilty of cowardly conduct,” a clause in the misbehavior-before-the-enemy charge.

And just this week, the president announced that the U.S. military would delay its drawdown to 9,800 troops for another five months at the request of newly elected Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. U.S. forces are seeking to train 352,000 Afghan security forces before leaving and now are about 20,000 shy of that figure.

At the heart of this whole situation, there’s still the decision to trade five Taliban detainees for a deserter, when there were in fact other options on the table. We’re aware of those options and frankly, the White House made a big mistake,” Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, told The Daily Beast. “And tying Bergdahl to an end-of-war effort was no less an error in judgment. The Army’s going to continue its process, which has taken way too long already, but it’s evident the administration screwed this up and nothing exists to justify the swap.”

White House spin on the Bergdahl swap had little to do with reality and everything to do with the talking points the administration wanted to advanceThe press dutifully carried out their role, echoing the administration’s spin and denigrating anyone who raised questions about it.

Reality has finally caught up with that spin, and the administration has been exposed as a bunch of incompetents and liars.  Their insistence that the narrative still holds – Psaki saying it was “worth it” – flies in the face of the truth.  Perhaps if Bergdahl is convicted of “cowardice in the face of the enemy,” the administration will change their tune.

By Rick Moran for American Thinker

By permission American Thinker

www.americanthinker.com

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/everything_the_white_house_told_us_about_bergdahl_was_wrong.html#ixzz3VWgcC5hK

WHAT’S MORE TOXIC TO AMERICA- EBOLA OR OBAMA?

Posted on October 27th, 2014

Ship of fools Obama by Eric Allie, Caglecartoons.com

By Wayne Allyn Root

From my commentaries the last few weeks, you know I’m concerned about a potential Ebola pandemic inside America. Nonetheless Ebola is a worry about a potential problem. A theoretical problem. No one knows yet how much damage Ebola can do to America.

On the other hand, we have already experienced the damage, destruction and pain of Obama. Let’s compare Ebola to Obama.

Ebola– so far, 1 dead and 2 nurses infected.

Obama- almost 50 million Americans on food stamps, 108 million on welfare or other entitlement programs, an all-time record number on disability. Over $3.7 trillion has been spent on welfare over the past five years under Obama.

Ebola– the healthcare, decantamination and security costs for Ebola are frightening. Each patient could cost in excess of $1 million to treat. But so far there are only a handful of patients. Ebola is with us for weeks, or months. Then it’s gone.

Obama the $7 trillion in debt added by Obama (so far) will cause decades of pain for American consumers and taxpayers,  damage middle class quality of life, and reduce U.S. economic growth for many generations to come.

Ebolathreatens to damage various sectors of the economy, but no one knows how bad it might be.

Obamaalready destroyed economy. Over 92 million working age Americans are not working. There are 10 million less Americans working than day Obama took office (even though the population is dramatically higher). We now have the lowest workforce participation rate in recorded history.

Ebola– this dreadful virus might overwhelm US healthcare system and result in higher health insurance premiums to pay for the massive cost.

Obamano guesswork needed. The facts are in. Obamacare has already wrecked the U.S. healthcare system and dramatically increased our premium costs. Premiums were up more in the past year than in the prior eight years COMBINED. But the worst is yet to come- rates are going even higher (over 60% in Seattle for example). And millions of cancellation notices are going out in the next few weeks.

Ebola– this virus has no known interaction with the IRS. It never came after me personally.

Obamaused IRS to try to destroy conservative donors and critics. I’m a witness. The White House clearly ordered the IRS to try to destroy me not once, but twice. Judicial Watch demanded the IRS hand over all documents related to my case. The IRS had 30 days- BY LAW- to comply. That was 15 months ago. The IRS has broken the law of the United States for well over a year to coverup for the crimes of Obama.

Eboladoesn’t sell guns to anyone.

Obama– in the “Fast and Furious scandal” the Obama administration sold guns to Mexican drug lords that killed over 200 Mexican citizens- plus a US border agent. So far that’s 200 more deaths than Ebola has caused in  North America.

Ebola– doesn’t trade deserters for 5 Jihadi terrorist murderers.

Obama- demoralizes U.S. military by making that unimaginable trade; cuts size of military dramatically; sends 4000 troops into Ebola Zone (with only 4 hours of Ebola training); and purges more generals than any president in history.

Ebolanever infected a single person at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

Obama– allegedly traded arms to Muslim rebels that led to deaths of 4 American heroes at Benghazi; ignored pleas from our Ambassador for more security; denied a rescue mission while our heroes were under vicious attack; then covered up the tragedy by blaming it on obscure movie no one in Middle East ever watched.

Eboladoesn’t steal my money or regulate me out of business.

Obamaput in place the single biggest tax increase (Obamacare) in history.

Worse, he has proposed the most tax increases in history that never passed- 442

Worst of all, Obama is the #1 regulator in U.S. history.

Ebola– so far has not affected the border.

Obamahas crippled border security. He has left our Southern border completely unsecured from massive waves of illegal immigrants desperate for cradle to grave entitlements; diseases like TB, Enterovirus and of course Ebola; and terrorist cells who could cross our wide open border and unleash a devastating 9-11-style attack on U.S. soil.

Ebola– so far poses no threat to Israel and has left the Middle East untouched.

Obamahis policies have endangered the security of Israel, and led to the “Arab Spring” that toppled dictators friendly to America, leaving the Middle East under attack from radical groups like ISIS.

Add it up.

Ebola is a terrible threat. But so far, it is only a threat.

Obama is toxic. Obama has had a devastating effect upon America’s economy, healthcare system, national interests and reputation across the globe.

Ebola might give us a punch in gut.    (my emphasis)

Obama could be fatal.

By Wayne Allyn Root for Root for America

By permission Wayne Allyn Root

www.rootforamerica.com

www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/#sthash.aClCX5Zl.dpuf

Are You Dumber than You Were Four Years Ago?

Posted on October 7th, 2014

Stop Stupidity No Naivety Brai 42062935EDITOR’S COMMENT: It is a shame that the people to whom these comments are directed most likely won’t be reading them. So, if you know someone that you believe would benefit, and the nation would also benefit, from reading these observations,  please email or send them a copy. Everyone will benefit, especially if they happen to vote.

By James Longstreet

If you are part of the roughly 40% that still think that the President is doing a fine job, the answer would be yes.

If you are indeed one such person, you seemed to have missed the mountain of empirical and evidentiary missteps and agency failures of this administration. 

You still probably don’t know who the Vice President is, and who the heck is Eric Holder?

You probably tuned out the “phony” scandals as did your news channels you watched in between video games.

You welcome all those foreign speaking cell phone users next to you on the trains and buses, and perhaps wonder, just for a second why it is taking them so long to learn English.  It is as if they don’t care or need to.

When asked about “Fast and Furious” you say as movies go, it was about two and a half stars.  Great ending.

When asked about Benghazi, you say “The movie actor in Anatomy of a Murder?”

When asked about $50,000 a plate dinners, you wonder why people would pay so much for one meal.

You think voter ID requirements don’t make sense, that poor people can’t be expected to get a free ID.  But you are okay with complicated computer website forced healthcare enrollment.

You feel that keeping people from Ebola infected areas from coming to our country is mean spirited and will end up harming us.

You are okay with immigration in any form, but can’t answer the question, “what is wrong with a monitored and measured immigration policy?”

You think Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and Harry Reid are all watching out for your best interests, over theirs.

You wonder why the interviewers are asking the President such difficult questions.

You don’t quite understand how our military can fight Ebola. Do they shoot the stuff or what?

You don’t quite understand why food costs are so high when there isn’t any inflation.

You think you can “keep your doctor” and that each family will save on average $2500 a year in health insurance costs.

You wonder why global warming is so cold.

You think there is a war on women because they can’t get free contraceptives.

You are certain that the Ferguson police officer shot the black youth just because he was black.  If the officer was being beaten up by a white youth, I guess you think he just would have allowed it to continue.

You don’t think Universities are businesses.

You think Obama is a Constitutional scholar, still.

Yes, if you are in that 40%, you just might check yourself to see if you are entirely engaged in reality.  Check your mailbox too.  Your government check is due any day.    (my emphasis)

By James Longstreet for American Thinker

By permission American Thinker

www.americanthinker.com

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/are_you_dumber_than_you_were_four_years_ago.html#ixzz3FK5QSDgy

Wall Street Admits That A Cyberattack Could Crash Our Banking System At Any Time

Posted on September 5th, 2014

CyberattackBy Michael Snyder

Wall Street banks are getting hit by cyber attacks every single minute of every single day.  It is a massive onslaught that is not highly publicized because the bankers do not want to alarm the public.  But as you will see below, one big Wall Street bank is spending 250 million dollars a year just by themselves to combat this growing problem.  The truth is that our financial system is not nearly as stable as most Americans think that it is.  We have become more dependent on technology than ever before, and that comes with a potentially huge downsideAn electromagnetic pulse weapon or an incredibly massive cyberattack could conceivably take down part or all of our banking system at any time.

This week, the mainstream news is reporting on an attack on our major banks that was so massive that the FBI and the Secret Service have decided to get involved.  The following is how Forbes described what is going on…

The FBI and the Secret Service are investigating a huge wave of cyber attacks on Wall Street banks, reportedly including JP Morgan Chase, that took place in recent weeks.

The attacks may have involved the theft of multiple gigabytes of sensitive data, according to reports. Joshua Campbell, supervisory special agent at the FBI, tells Forbes: “We are working with the United States Secret Service to determine the scope of recently reported cyber attacks against several American financial institutions.”

When most people think of “cyber attacks”, they think of a handful of hackers working out of lonely apartments or the basements of their parents.  But that is not primarily what we are dealing with anymore.  Today, big banks are dealing with cyberattackers that are extremely organized and that are incredibly sophisticated.

The threat grows with each passing day, and that is why JPMorgan Chase says that “not every battle will be won” even though it is spending 250 million dollars a year in a relentless fight against cyberattacks…

JPMorgan Chase this year will spend $250 million and dedicate 1,000 people to protecting itself from cybercrime — and it still might not be completely successful, CEO Jamie Dimon warned in April.

Cyberattacks are growing every day in strength and velocity across the globe. It is going to be continual and likely never-ending battle to stay ahead of it — and, unfortunately, not every battle will be won,” Dimon said in his annual letter to shareholders.

Other big Wall Street banks have a similar perspective.  Just consider the following two quotes from a recent USA Today article

Bank of America: “Although to date we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber attacks or other information security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future.”

Citigroup: “Citi has been subject to intentional cyber incidents from external sources, including (i) denial of service attacks, which attempted to interrupt service to clients and customers; (ii) data breaches, which aimed to obtain unauthorized access to customer account data; and (iii) malicious software attacks on client systems, which attempted to allow unauthorized entrance to Citi’s systems under the guise of a client and the extraction of client data. For example, in 2013 Citi and other U.S. financial institutions experienced distributed denial of service attacks which were intended to disrupt consumer online banking services. …

“… because the methods used to cause cyber attacks change frequently or, in some cases, are not recognized until launched, Citi may be unable to implement effective preventive measures or proactively address these methods.”

I don’t know about you, but those quotes do not exactly fill me with confidence.

Another potential threat that banking executives lose sleep over is the threat of electromagnetic pulse weapons.  The technology of these weapons has advanced so much that they can fit inside a briefcase now.  Just consider the following excerpt from an article that was posted on an engineering website entitled “Electromagnetic Warfare Is Here“…

The problem is growing because the technology available to attackers has improved even as the technology being attacked has become more vulnerable. Our infrastructure increasingly depends on closely integrated, high-speed electronic systems operating at low internal voltages. That means they can be laid low by short, sharp pulses high in voltage but low in energy—output that can now be generated by a machine the size of a suitcase, batteries included.

Electromagnetic (EM) attacks are not only possible—they are happening. One may be under way as you read this. Even so, you would probably never hear of it: These stories are typically hushed up, for the sake of security or the victims’ reputation.

That same article described how an attack might possibly happen…

An attack might be staged as follows. A larger electromagnetic weapon could be hidden in a small van with side panels made of fiberglass, which is transparent to EM radiation. If the van is parked about 5 to 10 meters away from the target, the EM fields propagating to the wall of the building can be very high. If, as is usually the case, the walls are mere masonry, without metal shielding, the fields will attenuate only slightly. You can tell just how well shielded a building is by a simple test: If your cellphone works well when you’re inside, then you are probably wide open to attack.

And with electromagnetic pulse weapons, terrorists or cyberattackers can try again and again until they finally get it right

And, unlike other means of attack, EM weapons can be used without much risk. A terrorist gang can be caught at the gates, and a hacker may raise alarms while attempting to slip through the firewalls, but an EM attacker can try and try again, and no one will notice until computer systems begin to fail (and even then the victims may still not know why).

Never before have our financial institutions faced potential threats on this scale.

According to the Telegraph, our banks are under assault from cyberattacks “every minute of every day”, and these attacks are continually growing in size and scope…

Every minute, of every hour, of every day, a major financial institution is under attack.

Threats range from teenagers in their bedrooms engaging in adolescent “hacktivism”, to sophisticated criminal gangs and state-sponsored terrorists attempting everything from extortion to industrial espionage. Though the details of these crimes remain scant, cyber security experts are clear that behind-the-scenes online attacks have already had far reaching consequences for banks and the financial markets.

In the end, it is probably only a matter of time until we experience a technological 9/11.

When that day arrives, will your money be safe?    (my emphasis)

By Michael Snyder for Economic Collapse

By permission Economic Collapse Blog

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/wall-street-admits-that-a-cyberattack-could-crash-our-banking-system-at-any-time

The Compromise Canard. Will the Media Ever Report That the Democrats Are the Party That Refuses to Compromise?

Posted on August 29th, 2014

Uncompromising by Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

By Ed Lasky

Barack Obama and many Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of being incapable of compromise.  Journalists follow their orders and spread the message.  Nothing can be farther from the truth. 

In fact, Tea Party members often object that Republicans compromise on too many issuesA big tent leads to such disputation; it is called liberty.  Valid arguments can be made to support a variety of positions.  But it is a myth propagated by liberals that refusal to compromise is built into the DNA of conservativesCall it projection or call it propaganda, but liberals — led by the president — have been the ones who have repeatedly refused to compromiseThey do not respect the will of the American people and have made a mockery of our Constitution. 

Barack Obama set the tone and revealed his agenda early in his presidency.  A mere three days after his first inauguration, he gathered Republican and Democratic leaders at the White House to discuss the proposed stimulus plan.  When presented a list of modest Republican proposals, he told (off) the Republicans that “elections have consequences” and “I won”.  As Marc Thiessen wrote in the Washington Post:

Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

That was an understatement.

What followed was an orgy of spending and debt accumulation unrivaled in history.  The regulatory agencies became growth industries, as did crony capitalist boondoggles.   The hangover will last decades and has undoubtedly made this recovery weaker than it otherwise would have been.  Obama and his Democratic overlords in both Houses of Congress rammed through measures that Republicans could do very little to stop.  Not that Democrats cared.

When Scott Brown, a Republican, won the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s senatorial seat after Kennedy died, Democrats faced the prospect of losing their ability to pass Obamacare in the form they designed.  They refused to listen to any talk of compromise or listen to warnings from Republicans that a disaster was in the making.  They resorted to extreme actions by passing the bill through an unprecedented “budget reconciliation” tactic.  Even then they had to in essence bribe reluctant Democrats through favors granted to them (“Cornhusker Kickback,” “Louisiana Purchase”) to garner their votes.   No rewrite, no delay, and certainly no comprise with Republicans.  Compromise did not exist in the Democrats’ lexicon.

In the wake of the 2010 Republican takeover of the House, Democrats in the Senate and Barack Obama faced the first real obstacle to their agenda.  Rule by decree became the norm.  After a history on the campaign trail of castigating George Bush for issuing signing statements when affixing his signature to laws passed by Congress, Obama made liberal use of them to avoid enforcing aspects of the law he considered, in his regalness, to be infringements of his power.  Recess appointments were made to work around Republican opposition to his more radical nominations (relative to his merely radical nominations).  ObamaCare has been so disfigured by Obama’s waivers, delays, enforcement discretion, obfuscation, twisting of the plain meaning of the law and twisting of regulations, that it taken on aspects of a Rube Goldberg device ready to collapse at any time.

Republicans have made innumerable offers to work with Democrats to repair and “reform this reform” or scrap the whole misbegotten mess so healthcare reform actually works; and they have been met with…no compromise offers in return.  Instead this jury-rigged power grab has been so distorted by patches and ploys by Obama and his lackeys that even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has cried uncle.  It is literally impossible for them to assess the fiscal impact of the law.  Instead of compromising and working across the aisle, President Obama rewrites laws to decide what they will be.  Immigration laws are meant to be ignored, right?  Washington has become a banana republic, complete with the humidity.

A lawless president has created an imperial presidency, yet Republicans are tarred for their adamant refusal to compromise with (i.e., submit to) such a leader.  Obama announced he intends to circumvent Congress, gutting the second branch of government-and declares he will rule by his pen and his phone, and the media’s position is what? Supine — when not depicting Republicans as obstructionists who refuse to compromise.

Barack Obama barely deigns to meet with Republicans to discuss policy, despite numerous entreaties by the Republicans that he do so, preferring to discuss his favorite type of peppers with a New Mexican disk jockey; chat with the Pimp with The Limp; pick NCAA Tournament winners on TV; josh with David Letterman; play hoops with NBA superstars; golf with Tiger Woods and his newest BFF, former football great Alanzo Mourning; be serenaded by Paul McCartney and other music legends; humored by Jerry Seinfeld; and make numerous visits to donors in Tinseltown.  Has there been any interest in meeting with Republicans despite veritable pleas by them that he do so to formulate policy? Where is the willingness to compromise?

After winning reelection in 2012, Obama did agree to meet with Speaker of the House Boehner to discuss the “fiscal cliff.”  Boehner wanted something in return if he agreed to raise income taxes on those earning more than $1 million a year.  How did Obama handle that offer to compromise? The Wall Street Journal reported:

Mr.  Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered.  In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr.  Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr.  Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table.  What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said.  “I get that for free.”

How about that for “compromise”?

When journalists accuse Republicans of being incapable of compromise, do they ever question Obama about his rhetoric?  Obama routinely taunts and denigrates those who do not follow his orders.  Skeptics about climate change are members of the “Flat Earth Society” who think that the moon is made of cheese.  Republicans make “stinkburgers” and “meanwhiches” (this from the man who was declared the world’s greatest orator).  Republicans want to build moats on the border of Mexico and fill it with alligators to eat Hispanics.   Republicans are “hostage-takers” and bomb throwers.  Even should Republicans should agree to follow his decrees well…in Obama’s words, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us.  They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in back.”  When frustrated by congressional and constitutional roadblocks to his agenda, he refuses to “triangulate” a la Bill Clinton and instead muses about going full Bulworth in his second term.  Does anything in that rhetoric sound like an invitation to engage with Republicans, to compromise?

Democrats pile on whenever Republicans don’t sit in the back of the bus.  Reid called Tea Partiers anarchists who are taking America hostage; Democrats, including their leaders who should but don’t remain civil, call Republicans jihadists, arsonists and terrorists regularly (videos cued up here) and, of course, are racists.   Harry Reid again:  “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK.  Do I need to say more?” ; Republicans are “servants of Satan” (okay, I made the last one up but it sounds like something Harry Reid might say about Republicans in hock to the satanic Koch brothers — all the while protected from lawsuits by spewing such nonsense from the floor of the Senate).

Does insulting language encourage a meeting of the minds?

Harry Reid has been a faithful servant to Obama, as well as to cronies who have made him a rich man (see Harry Reid’s Long, Steady Accretion of Power & Wealth).  As Majority Leader of the Senate he has yielded dictatorial powers.  What for centuries has been acclaimed as the world’s greatest deliberative body has become a rubber stamp for Obama and the Democrats; a rubber stamp held by Reid.  As John Hinderaker wrote at the estimable Powerline,  “ Harry Reid is destroying the Senate”

He controls the agenda of the Senate-what comes up for a vote and what doesn’t.  What budget is passed and what is shot down.  The Do-Nothing Congress critics harp on is really a Do Nothing Senate as the House passes a stream of bills that die at the hands of Dirty HarryJohn Boehner, flawed as we all are, was correct when he declared in late 2013 “To date, the House has passed nearly 150 bills that the United States Senate has failed to act on.  The Senate (and) the President continue to stand in the way of the people’s priorities.”

Harry Reid has also ignores Republican senators, when not insulting them.  He limits the number of amendments Republicans can attach to Senate bills by engaging in a maneuver called “filling the amendment tree”.

As Brian Darling wrote in “Tyranny in the United States Senate”:

Majority Leader Harry Reid has regularly used a procedural tactic called “filling the amendment tree” to restrict Senators’ right to debate and offer amendments.  While previous Majority Leaders have occasionally used this tactic, Senator Reid has used this tactic often—more than all of his predecessors combined.

The world’s greatest deliberative body has been severely damaged because Senators’ right to debate and offer amendments has been severely restricted by Reid.  (He has also employed a more arcane tactic to block motions to suspend the rules after debate is completed, further diminishing the ability of Republicans to offer amendments to bills he forces through the Senate).

Does that sound like compromise?

Reid has also abolished the filibuster for certain nominations, exercising even more tyranny.

The filibuster has been an age-old custom that has protected the rights of the minority in the Senate.  The filibuster is a procedure where debate is extended.  In practice, it has meant most legislation and presidential nominations need a 60% vote to bring a bill or nominee to the floor for a vote.   Defenders have called the filibuster ‘The Soul of the Senate.”

When Republicans were in the Senate majority, Reid, then-Senator Obama and many other Democrats hailed the filibuster as playing a crucial role in our democracy and all but demonized Republicans who dared think about abolishing it.  Filibusters have been used to ensure radical nominees are not confirmed by the Senate.  It has been a tool to encourage compromise.

That was then; this is now.  When confronted with GOP opposition to various Obama nominees, Reid pulled the trigger on the “nuclear option” and abolished the filibuster for most nominees chosen by Obama.  There went the Soul of the Senate.   Since the Democrats control the Senate, Obama has a clear path for his nominees to be confirmed –regardless of Republican resistance.  These include federal judges with lifetime appointments, meaning Obama’s agenda will live on through the courts long after he leaves the Oval Office.

Does the abolition by Reid of the filibuster sound like “compromise”?

Has Barack Obama shown any willingness to compromise?  Yes — but with America’s adversaries and enemies.  He does keep promises occasionally, such as the one when he promised sotto voce (this from the most transparent administration in history) to Putin’s puppet president that should Obama win a second term he would show more flexibility to Russia’s ruler.  Flexibility has certainly followed; or appeasement, if not preemptive surrender.

Crimea has followed, as has the hollowing out of our military.  Russia violates arms treaties with America: ho hum.  Iran violates agreements regarding its oil exports and sanctions-look away as Obama compromises to mullahs.  Obama extends warm greetings not just to the mullahs in Iran (far warmer than anything he has ever said to Republicans) and supported the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt and the terror group Hamas unifying with the Palestinian Authority, compromising American law prohibiting  financial support for terror groups.  The red line against Syria’s use of chemical weapons was compromised away (Obama wants us to believe he never even set one.)  And “Assad must go” becomes “Assad must stay” at the behest of Putin.  He is compromising away: Iraq and Afghanistan –to some combination of Al Qaeda, the sequel; Iranian mullahs; and the Taliban.  He compromised our military honor by trading five Taliban murderers for a deserter (at best) and celebrated the happy occasion in the Rose Garden.  He compromises away our allies to succor and comfort our enemies.  The bow to the Saudi King was a metaphor of things to come.

Will the media ever report that the Democrats are the party that refuses to compromise?

A Republican takeover of the Senate will topple Harry Reid (hopefully once and for all and return him to the Ritz) so he can no longer serve as Obama’s enforcer and smother Republicans.  Taking over the Senate will indeed, as Charles Cooke writes, do Republicans a lot of good — as it will America.  A GOP Senate could do significant damage to Obamacare and Obama’s agenda for America.  A Republican Congress will make clear to the American people, despite the media firewall, that Obama and the Democrats are the ones who refuse to compromise.  After all, why would they compromise on Obama’s dream to “fundamentally transform America” unless compelled to do so by voters?

A man with a plan that is wantonly reckless does not want to compromise with his political foes.  America should bend Barack Obama to their will by electing a Republican Senate come November.  Then Obama will be taught some lessons about the art of compromise.     (my emphasis)

By Ed Lasky for American Thinker

By permission American Thinker

www.americanthinker.com

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/the_compromise_canard.html

Blind Faith

Posted on July 7th, 2014

Obama on a UnicornBy Monte Pelerin

A guest post from Tom Lester:

Blind Faith

Obamacare, the Stimulus, TARP, Fast and Furious, support of the Egyptian regime change, Libyan Leading from Behind, four American killed in Benghazi, blaming a video for the Benghazi attacks, the IRS targeting, NSA email and phone file storage, Syrian Red Line, the Russian takeover of Crimea, the VA handling of veterans, release of Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo, the onslaught of children crossing the Mexican border, two years of lost emails of the key IRS individual and now Iraq.

I can’t imagine any previous U.S. President having so many scandals attributed to his administration and virtually none of them adequately answered or resolved. One must reasonably ascribe the failure to question these issues and ferret out the truth by a lack of earnest reporting by a sympathetic media that ignores the denials, stonewalling and misdirections of the White House. Were there any other person in occupancy at $17 Trillion Pennsylvania Avenue NW, I’d wager the lame-brain press would be bellowing that such action or, more often and more accurately, inaction represents a massive conspiracy to change our nation into something entirely different. But the press, that guarantor of truth and honesty, is asleep at the wheel while our American Republic is raced injudiciously toward becoming a European social democracy.

But what’s truly astounding is the poll numbers of individuals who still trust the president! This is blind faith beyond comprehension! I’ve heard all the left-wing zealots who advocate bigger government beyond the specifics of the Constitution. I’ve heard the collectivists who stupidly want open borders and a non-existent military. And I’ve heard the dismissals of complete lies about what Obamacare would bring – keep your plan, keep your doctor, etc. – bad enough when it’s political spin, criminal when total fraud.

Religiously, as Christians, Jews or Muslims, we rely on blind faith of a Creator who will deliver on the words we deem as our respective holy documents. We may come to that decision as we view the magnificence of the universe, the intricacies of a flower or the beauty of procreation of all species. Blind faith in our Creator is not an unreasonable practice in that most preach beyond the faith must be good or charitable works for our fellow man. History, however, has shown faith in our fellow man must also be combined with unfiltered verification.

But perhaps part of those good works are embodied in the old maxim of never saying ill of someone unless you can also find something good to say about them. Beyond the trappings of a good husband and father, I’ve diligently searched for the good things of Obama and finally come up with

First, I find it admirable that he can find time to play golf in spite of the obligations of the office of president and in spite of the present chaos in the world. An earlier leader would have been on-station agonizing on whether his decision could make a difference. He’s been able to golf so much more frequently than I ever could with my meager and comparatively insignificant obligations.

Second, I admire how often Obama can take elaborate vacations for himself and his family on someone else’s dime. It would be nice if my rich uncle would foot the bill for the nicest hotels, food and private transportation to the many exotic places in the U.S. and throughout the world.

Third, I find it remarkable that Obama’s scruples allow him with a straight face to demonize any opponent with a differing view and to make statements that are false but that his minions attempt to spin as fact.

And lastly, I admire Obama, as a self-appointed messiah, giving speeches that mesmerize his apologists and send chills down certain commentators’ legs. His performances bring back memories of James Warren “Jim” Jones and other notable tyrants always accepted as truth by an unthinking multitude with unfathomable blind faith.    (my emphasis)

By Monte Pelerin for Economic Noise

By permission Monte Pelerin

www.economicnoise.com

http://www.economicnoise.com/2014/06/24/blind-faith/

Suicide By Congress

Posted on June 26th, 2014

Dangerous President Obama  by Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle

By Monte Pelerin

Suicide by Cop” is a term that describes the intentional behavior of a person wanting to be shot and killed by police. Wikipedia describes it this way:

Suicide by cop is a suicide method in which a suicidal individual deliberately acts in a threatening way, provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer or other legitimately armed individual, such as being shot to death.

Barack Obama seems to be applying this concept to a higher level. Obama may be attempting  “suicide by Congress.” No bullets are involved in this scenario. Impeachment, the equivalent of political death, ends this threatening behavior.

Obama increasingly seems to dare Congress to initiate impeachment hearings against him. He routinely bypasses them, violating their authority and the Constitution as well. He also delights in taunting them, threatening with his pen and phone.

Is this a strategy with some unknown purpose? Is Obama more delusional than many believe?

By my count, there are now 26 scandals, some  more serious than others. Probably a half-dozen of these are impeachable offenses were Congress to move. Nixon was impeached for a cover-up and IRS “indiscretions.” Obama’s actions in these two areas alone are worse than Nixon’s? The nation’s moral and ethical decline is not enough to explain the pass he has thus far received. Democrat loyalty and control of the Senate is probably the best answer. However, both these stopgaps could change after the 2014 mid-terms.

The VA scandal continue to grow. This issue galvanized the public in ways that other scandals did not. It is probably the least threatening to Obama. Incompetence and fake books at the VA preceded him, and there is no evidence that suggests he intentionally made matters worse.

The Bowe Bergdahl incident also resonates with the public. Perhaps it was the straw that brought the entire facade of competence and integrity issues of the Obama presidency down. There was only one person responsible for that decision and it was Barack Obama. Nothing else has responsibility defined so clearly. Rather than explain the reasons why the exchange occurred and why it might be in the interests of the United States, the Administration lies and stonewalls.  Joseph Miller identifies eight White House lies with respect to the Bergdahl affair.

Obama’s behavior is bizarre. It always has been. Is his Messianic complex responsible for behavior that looks like suicide by Congress?  Has his delusional side taken over? Or, is he looking at the clock and realizing that all that stands between him and displacing Jimmy Carter as the worst president in modern history?

The big question is how much more of this behavior is required before Congress acts? My guess is no more. The 2014 election results will make it permissible for Democrats to abandon their guy.     (my emphasis)

By Monte Pelerin for Economic Noise

By permission Monte Pelerin

www.economicnoise.com

http://www.economicnoise.com/2014/06/10/suicide-congress/

Iraq Agonistes

Posted on June 19th, 2014

Endless War

By Alan Caruba

I remember how the Vietnam War seemed to drag on for years without resolution, from Lyndon Johnson’s initial expansion in 1964, after he was elected in his own right through his second term, marked by many marches in Washington, D.C. demanding the U.S. get out. It took Nixon’s and Kissinger’s efforts to secure an end to the conflict in 1973.

The war in Iraq had a similar feel to it. The first conflict, led by Bush41 to push Iraq out of Kuwait had public support and was dramatically short and successful. The second, led by Bush43 began as an effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power and initially the military victory was also swift. In hindsight, the error was staying on, presumably to help establish a democratic government and other institutions in a nation that had never known democracy.

The Iraqis are divided by Islam’s ancient schism, Sunni versus Shiite. Saddam had been a Sunni. He was replaced by a Shiite, Nouri al-Maliki, elected Prime Minister in a nation that is predominantly Shiite.

While Republicans would like to blame the current situation on Obama, the fact is that George W. Bush signed a “Status of Forces Agreement” in 2008 that terminated the American military presence in Iraq at the close of 2011. That said, President Obama shares the blame for the current situation for failing to push for a military presence there. His foreign policy in the Middle East has been to get the U.S. out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan.

This did not go unnoticed by Iran, al-Qaeda, or the breakaway faction, the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) which regrouped in Syria as part of the forces seeking to oust the regime of Bashar Assad, its dictator. They took the time to recruit the most fanatical Islamists into their ranks, train them as an army, and, having established a command center in Syria, to then unleash them on Iraq.

While this was going on President Obama never failed to tell Americans that bin Laden was dead and al Qaeda was on a “path to defeat.”  In a 2013 speech at the National Defense University, he asserted that “the future of terrorism” came from “less capable” terrorist groups that mainly threatened “diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad.”

He not only learned nothing from the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed our ambassador and three others, he and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, engaged in a lie about it being a spontaneous event triggered by a video no one had seen.

Obama concluded his remarks by calling on Congress to repeal its 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against al Qaeda!

As the June 12 Wall Street Journal editorial, “The Iraq Debacle”, noted, “If the war on terror was over, ISIS did not get the message.” 

Obama’s decision not to intervene in Syria after it became known Assad was using poison gas was not just his own reluctance to engage militarily in the Middle East, but reflected the widespread American lack of support for further involvement in the region. Too many years in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the vast costs and loss of American lives was and is a significant factor.

Coinciding with this has been Obama’s view that America is not exceptional, nor that it should continue its role as the leader of the free world. In this regard he is spectacularly wrong. Much of what passes for stability among the nations of the world is influenced by the military power (and the willingness to use it) of the United States—at least until Obama was elected.

His release of five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay reflects his longtime intention to close the site which he deems a “provocation” to Islamic terrorism. They do not need provocation. They are holy warriors, jihadists.

They attacked the homeland when there was no Guantanamo and there had been attacks on our embassies going back to the 1980s. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed them as no danger to the U.S. One of them was involved in the planning of 9/11 and two are designated by the United Nations as war criminals. Clinton is as delusional as Obama.

Meanwhile, Iraq was ripe for a Sunni-Shiite civil war after the removal of Saddam Hussein. Prime Minister al-Maliki, ruling in autocratic manner, removed many Sunni generals who had fought alongside of American forces and increased the Shiite-Sunni divide in his government. The loss of major cities in the north to ISIS, a Sunni entity, has brought Shiite Iran into the present conflict potentially to protect southern Iraq and its own interests because ISIS exists to create an Islamic caliphate to control the entire Middle East.

ISIS is so radical, so devoted to the most draconian and barbaric aspects of Islam, that it is filling the streets of captured cities with the beheaded bodies of all they deem a threat to their ideology.

The notion that al Qaeda and comparable groups were on the run was either a delusion Obama held onto or a deliberate lie. ISIS is just one among others that include the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Nusra Front in Syria, Ansar Dine in Mali, and Boko Haram in Nigeria.

Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, believes that “however much damage the al Qaeda-type organizations can do to property and lives, they ultimately cannot emerge victorious because their undiluted extremism both alienates Muslims and scares non-Muslims.” That is a long term prediction, but it is the short-term conflict that must be addressed and Dr. Pipes deems what is occurring “a Middle Eastern problem and outside powers should aim to protect their own interests, not solve the Middle East’s crisis. Tehran, not we, should fight ISIS.”

Map of the Middle East

Obama will likely follow Dr. Pipe’s recommendation, leaving the fighting to the Iraqis and whatever aid Iran provides. The hope is that Iraqi forces can regroup to protect Baghdad and push out ISIS or restrict it to the northern section of Iraq. The war may ultimately see Iraq split into sections, one of which will be a separate and sovereign Kurdish one. ISIS, if the Iranians decide to rid the region of them, could face defeat. It would solve their threat to both Syria and Iraq.

Ultimately, this isn’t just a Middle East problem. It is a U.S. and global problem because (1) Islamism is a threat to modern civilization and (2) because two of the largest fields of oil in the Middle East exist in Iraq, the other two are in Saudi Arabia and a fifth is in Kuwait. If Iraq falls, the price of gasoline and all other petroleum products would skyrocket.

After six years of the Obama administration, the U.S. has no friends in the Middle East—the kind that trust us, but it does have interests to protect. It has an enemy in fanatical Islamism. For now, however, it will not put U.S. troops into the Iraqi conflict and that reflects not just Obama’s point of view, but that of most Americans.    (my emphasis)

By Alan Caruba for Facts Not Fantasy

By permission Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Could This Be the Napster of the Health Care Industry?

Posted on June 18th, 2014

The Clinic at Walmart Get Well Stay WellBy Bill Bonner

COMMENT: Recent polls about health care show something you already know. Americans still aren’t in love with the Affordable Care Act… or Obamacare… or however they decide to phrase the question. People don’t like government meddlers meddling in their health care. Plain and simple.

But there’s nothing (politically, that is) you can do about it. And before you tell me that voting the current cast of characters/crooks out of office is a step in the right direction, consider what’s happening right now. The ACA’s original opponents, the ones who didn’t vote for the law when it was originally passed, are now embracing certain aspects of the health care reform.

Leave a bad law on the books long enough and even its biggest enemies will start to like it. And that applies to both politicians… and citizens.

The government’s counting on your growing tired of opposing its law. They’re hoping once you realize the political process has already cemented this new layer of bureaucracy into the status quo, you’ll move onto new and more interesting things. Isn’t there an American POW prisoner swap you should be paying attention to? Or a national tragedy that can dominate the front pages for a few days?

But you know what you won’t find when you turn on the TV? Innovative ways people are coming up with to deliver quality health care at low costs. And one of the innovators is Wal-Mart.

Shoppers at one Wal-Mart in Texas now have the option of seeing a primary care doctor in the store health clinic. The store is offering $4 office visits for any employees covered by the store’s health insurance and $40 visits for their customers. This store alone is set to serve about 4,500 employees/customers.

Ideas like this don’t need to be lobbied and debated in the sacred halls of Congress. No backroom deals need be made to make these clinics a reality. All that’s required are people willing to thinking outside the box (and beyond government red tape). Just solutions that work for people who need them.

That’s exactly what Agora Publishing president Bill Bonner recently discovered during a trip to Florida. As he recounts in today’s article, he sees the future of health care, and it doesn’t involve Obamacare health navigators or government “death panels.”

Here are his comments …

We have seen the future. In Boca Raton. At the mall.

We’re talking about the future of health care. It’s already the nation’s biggest and fastest-growing industry. And it’s ripe for disruption. A big fat plum, waiting for a worm.

In fact, were it not for the poisonous gas laid down by Washington and the health care oligarchy, the industry probably would have met its Napster already.

For those who are not hip to the online music world, Napster practically destroyed the record industry when it made it possible for people to share their music collections, for free, with other Internet users — without paying the band, the record label, the distributor or the retailer.

The Internet has practically destroyed the print media, too. It has made it so cheap and so easy to distribute text in digital form that no old-style publishing business can resist it. Newspapers sales are sinking. Bookstores are closing. Directories and databases are all abandoning dead trees for the fluid freedom of fast-moving electrons.

Which brings us to the Apple store in the mall in Boca Raton.

“What’s the problem,” asked a confident young woman with an iPad in her hand.

Wife Elizabeth explained that one of her email programs wasn’t working properly. The woman took some digital notes… or checked some boxes. After a brief set of interrogatories, she announced:

“A technician will be with you soon. Most likely, he’ll already know what the problem is.”

He would most likely know because he had probably seen it before. And the iPad had set him up for it. The information fed into the iPad helped the machine identify a range of possible problems and solutions. The technician must have had a fair idea — even before he saw the “patient” (the laptop computer) — what was wrong and what to do about it.

Most people do not have unusual computer problems; they have the same problems most people have. Similarly, most people do not have rare health problems; they have the kinds of problems most people have.

These problems can be fingered in just a few questions asked by a competent clerk… tested with a few additional questions… instantly assigned probability scores for the accuracy of the diagnosis… and given additional probabilities for the effect of suggested treatments.

These diagnostic software systems could be open source (meaning there would be universal access by way of a free license to the source code). This means they could be improved by an army of software developers all over the world. And they could be updated and deepened, second by second, by doctors and patients… to record, recall and deliver far more information than a doctor alone ever could.

After pointing to likely problems, such software could produce thousands of pages of documents, histories, studies, science, articles and so forth — including dissenting opinions and alternative recommendations — allowing the patient to become as much of an authority on his illness as he chose to be… and to take as much charge of his treatment as he wished to.

The program could also recite the risks of drug treatment more clearly than the typical medical professional. Patients could then buy medication just as they do today at Apple stores.

Where necessary, questions could be easily enhanced by visual scans and more objective tests. Complications, confusions and uncertainty could also be easily flagged for further study or more traditional medical treatment.

Patients would have no obligation to use this new service. Nor would they be limited to it. It would be a cheap and easy alternative, at a fraction of today’s prices.

But wait, you might say, what about the risks?

What risks?

We presume such a system would make wrong diagnoses from time to time. We also presume that, occasionally, treatments would be inappropriate. But is there any reason to think there would be more errors in such a digital system than in the more human-based system we have now?

Probably not.

The Internet would also allow patients to report on their progress on a daily… or even hourly… basis. This would allow the software to “learn” — adjusting its models, depending on the reported effects.

But wait. We must be dreaming! The health care/insurance industry is so rich… so successful… so fat… and so sassy there’s no way the conniving partners — in the industry and Washington — would permit the competition.

Just recently, we saw a university study proving empirically (or as empirically as these things get) that the U.S. is ruled by an oligarchy of wealthy special interests. And few special interests are as rich and powerful as the health care industry.

What would the quacks and specialists do? Who would buy the worthless drugs and treatments? How would the health insurers make their money?

And what about the tort lawyers? Who would they sue, if the advice came from an open-source computer program… with thousands of contributors… including patients?

Nah… A disruption in the health care industry? Not going to happen. The future will have to wait.    (my emphasis)

By Bill Bonner for Daily Reckoning

By permission Daily Reckoning

http://dailyreckoning.com

http://dailyreckoning.com/a-cheap-easy-way-to-fix-the-us-health-care-system/

Do you have an interesting news story that just doesn't "add up," or is not receiving the appropriate coverage in the news, just let us know. We'd love to hear it! And, we'll investigate. CLICK HERE.
Get What Am I Missing Here delivered to your inbox for FREE!