The republican led House has already passed a bill that would essentially set sequestration aside, but in the Democrat led Senate "dirty" Harry Reid will not even bring up the bill.....and Where's Obama....out at fundraisers and campaigning....Where's the Presidental Leadership on an issue like this????....all he is concerned about is these defense contractors abiding with the law and putting out early layoff notices which he fears will hurt his reelection chances.....Obama needs to be sent home for good.....we need some real leadership in the White House...
Defense cuts poised to deal billions of dollars in damage to contractor-heavy states
Published September 30, 2012 FoxNews.com
Defense contractors are bracing for a blow to business should Congress fail to avert massive automatic budget cuts come January.
And newly emerging studies are starting to show which states will be hit hardest. For some, the budget ax amounts to billions of dollars in lost income over the next decade.
"(The cuts) will cause dramatic program and personnel dislocation within our industry," Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens said in a recent statement.
Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, Md., and Maryland is one of several states expected to take a heavy hit.
The Center for Security Policy recently outlined, state by state, the potential impact of the cuts. The five that would be hit worst are Virginia, California, Texas, Maryland and Florida.
In Virginia, defense contractors could be looking at a $9.9 billion hit every year -- that includes the impact of both the so-called "sequestration" cuts and budget cuts already planned that likely will not be averted. According to the study, that could mean more than 122,000 private-sector jobs.
In California, the projected impact is $7.9 billion. In Texas, it's $6.5 billion.
The "sequestration" cuts are what lawmakers and contractors are all worried about. They were triggered by lawmakers' failure to reach a deficit-reduction plan on their own, following last summer's deal to raise the nation's debt limit.
For the time being, contractors are anxiously awaiting the post-election lame-duck session of Congress, seen as the last and best chance for something to be done to delay or avert the budget cuts. But if Congress does nothing, then more than $500 billion in defense cuts over the next decade are set to go into effect. On top of that are another $500 billion in non-defense cuts.
According to an estimate over the summer by a George Mason University scholar, the defense portion of that could cost more than 1 million jobs over the next decade.
Contractors are warning that the job-loss potential is no bluff. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., maker of the Black Hawk helicopter, recently announced the elimination of 570 jobs, from the closure of a plant in upstate New York.
And Northrop Grumman recently announced it was cutting 600 aerospace jobs
"Who knows what's going to happen," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. "On the defense side, there are quite a number of states that will be impacted."
Pattison said the defense cuts won't just hit the companies -- they'll hit, over time, the budgets of the states that rely on tax revenue from those companies.
"Tough decisions will have to be made at the state level to determine do you raise taxes? Do you continue to cut?" he said.
But for now, Congress is at a stalemate, and the issue is more of a political football than anything else. Democrats blame Republicans for their stubbornness on raising taxes. Republicans blame Democrats for their stubbornness on cutting entitlements. And if lawmakers can work together to avert the cuts, budget hawks want to make sure Congress doesn't balk on achieving the $1.2 trillion in total deficit reduction.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been pleading with Congress to work it out.
"You want a strong national defense for this country? I need to have some stability," Panetta said Thursday. "That's what I'm asking the Congress to do. Get me some stability with regards to the funding of the Defense Department for the future."
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Obama...Now he's simply violating American Law...He needs to be Arrested!
This is not only amazing, but it's CRIMINAL....Your President and his bunch of Goons have asked law abiding companies to act against current U.S. law and NOT notify employees of potential layoff BECAUSE the notices would go out right before the election and might hurt his chances for reelection....In the meantime the whole idea for military cutbacks as part of sequestration was THE WHITE HOUSE'S IDEA...and it was pushed until after the election so it was in his favor...AND he's spent the last YEAR doing nothing to forward any legislation...all he's done is fund raise and campaign....
And oh by the way he's telling these companies that YOUR TAX DOLLARS will be used to compensate any companies for any/all legislation that comes their way for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW...
Obama and his Goons need to be arrested!!!
Administration to pay legal fees for contractors that don't issue sequestration warnings
Published September 29, 2012 FoxNews.com
The Obama administration has issued further guidelines for defense contractors facing layoffs over sequestration that include the promise of legal compensation for employee disputes, drawing renewed accusations from congressional Republicans about trying to conceal the full, potential impact of the looming situation.
The memorandum issued Friday restated the Labor Department's position from July that contractors should not issue written notices to employees because of the "uncertainty" over the across-the-board cuts to the defense budget and other federal spending that will occur Jan. 2 unless Congress reaches a new deal.
The notices are required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and generally require employers with more than 100 employees to provide 60-day notices of "mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable."
"For the second time, the Obama administration has now encouraged government contractors to ignore the WARN Act and hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs due to the looming sequestration cuts,” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. and lead author of the Sequestration Transparency Act, said Friday.
"Even more astonishing, the administration today told contractors that the government would cover legal costs that could result from ignoring the law. Rather than work with congressional Republicans to avert these devastating military cuts that threaten our national defense, the Obama administration is trying to confuse the public on the eve of an election."
The projected $500 billion in Pentagon cuts under the so-called sequestration will occur because Congress failed to agree on a deficit-reduction plan this summer.
The guidance issued by the Labor Department this summer stated "it is neither necessary nor appropriate" for federal contractors to issue the warnings.
The memorandum issued Friday states the federal government would cover employee compensation under the WARN Act – "irrespective of the outcome" as long as the contractor follows the Labor Department guidelines.
Still, defense contractor Lockheed Martin -- which might have to lay off employees should the cuts kick in -- is still considering whether to send out the notices, according to The Hill newspaper.
Rep. John Kline, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, suggested last week that the Labor Department is trying to conceal the full impact of the cuts.
"The Labor Department is trying to hide the consequences of sequestration from workers," Kline, R-Minn., said in a letter to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
The letter was the second in two months by Republican committee leaders in which they asked for an update and more detailed information about the obligations federal contractors have in giving the advanced notice.
On Friday, Republican Sens. John McCain, Ariz.; Lindsey Graham, S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, N.H., issued a similar statement, saying in part, "The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Obama administration tells contractors again: Don’t issue layoff notices
By Jeremy Herb - 09/28/12 07:25 PM ET
The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.
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.
But the new guidance would appear to address one of the chief concerns from the companies — that they could be liable to compensate employees who were laid off if the companies don’t issue the notices.
The GOP senators complained, however, that this tactic would push the cost of the layoffs onto taxpayers.
A Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told The Hill that the company is still reviewing the documents.
And oh by the way he's telling these companies that YOUR TAX DOLLARS will be used to compensate any companies for any/all legislation that comes their way for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW...
Obama and his Goons need to be arrested!!!
Administration to pay legal fees for contractors that don't issue sequestration warnings
Published September 29, 2012 FoxNews.com
The Obama administration has issued further guidelines for defense contractors facing layoffs over sequestration that include the promise of legal compensation for employee disputes, drawing renewed accusations from congressional Republicans about trying to conceal the full, potential impact of the looming situation.
The memorandum issued Friday restated the Labor Department's position from July that contractors should not issue written notices to employees because of the "uncertainty" over the across-the-board cuts to the defense budget and other federal spending that will occur Jan. 2 unless Congress reaches a new deal.
The notices are required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and generally require employers with more than 100 employees to provide 60-day notices of "mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable."
"For the second time, the Obama administration has now encouraged government contractors to ignore the WARN Act and hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs due to the looming sequestration cuts,” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. and lead author of the Sequestration Transparency Act, said Friday.
"Even more astonishing, the administration today told contractors that the government would cover legal costs that could result from ignoring the law. Rather than work with congressional Republicans to avert these devastating military cuts that threaten our national defense, the Obama administration is trying to confuse the public on the eve of an election."
The projected $500 billion in Pentagon cuts under the so-called sequestration will occur because Congress failed to agree on a deficit-reduction plan this summer.
The guidance issued by the Labor Department this summer stated "it is neither necessary nor appropriate" for federal contractors to issue the warnings.
The memorandum issued Friday states the federal government would cover employee compensation under the WARN Act – "irrespective of the outcome" as long as the contractor follows the Labor Department guidelines.
Still, defense contractor Lockheed Martin -- which might have to lay off employees should the cuts kick in -- is still considering whether to send out the notices, according to The Hill newspaper.
Rep. John Kline, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, suggested last week that the Labor Department is trying to conceal the full impact of the cuts.
"The Labor Department is trying to hide the consequences of sequestration from workers," Kline, R-Minn., said in a letter to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
The letter was the second in two months by Republican committee leaders in which they asked for an update and more detailed information about the obligations federal contractors have in giving the advanced notice.
On Friday, Republican Sens. John McCain, Ariz.; Lindsey Graham, S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, N.H., issued a similar statement, saying in part, "The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Obama administration tells contractors again: Don’t issue layoff notices
By Jeremy Herb - 09/28/12 07:25 PM ET
The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.
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.
But the new guidance would appear to address one of the chief concerns from the companies — that they could be liable to compensate employees who were laid off if the companies don’t issue the notices.
The GOP senators complained, however, that this tactic would push the cost of the layoffs onto taxpayers.
A Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told The Hill that the company is still reviewing the documents.
Wasting YOUR Taxpayer Money Again...
Viral video touting free 'Obama phone' puts spotlight on federal program
By Joshua Rhett Miller Published September 29, 2012
FoxNews.com
A viral video of an Obama supporter touting her “Obama phone” has put the spotlight on an obscure federal program that provides discounted phone service to qualifying low-income Americans.
“Keep Obama as president,” the animated woman says on the video. “He gave us a phone.”
The video is drawing attention to the government program — Lifeline — as a national debate unfolds on entitlements and the growing percentage of Americans who pay no income taxes and get a long menu of government benefits. But even though some beneficiaries may credit President Obama for providing the phones, Lifeline is an extension of a program that has existed since 1985. Still, critics including Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., note the program has swelled from $772 million in 2008 to $1.6 billion.
“It's a government-run, taxpayer-funded program that's running wild and costing more and more,” reads Griffin’s official House of Representatives website.
Private carriers who contract with the government, including TracPhone and Sprint, have websites intended to publicize the program. Some attempt to dispel the program’s connection to the president, such as freegovernmentcellphones.net, while others, including obamaphone.net, embrace it.
“The free Obama phone is an important program, especially for low income families that would otherwise not have access to basic communications,” the homepage of obamaphone.net reads.
The site does, however, clarify that Obama did not start the program and that there's no such thing as an "Obama phone."
"It’s true that government provides free cellphones to the poor and disabled people," the site reads. "But the Obama part is not true as Obama didn’t initiate this program. It’s on the run [sic] since the administration of Reagan."
Griffin, who introduced H.R. 3481 in November to end the program, claims to have evidence of dead people getting free cell phones in the mail, ineligible people getting multiple phones and electronic kiosks in convenience stores to encourage people to get the phones.
“The truth is, though, that taxpayers are footing the bill,” the website reads. “The program is called Lifeline, but in reality it's turned into Uncle Sam's Unlimited Plan.”
Lifeline was originally envisioned as a means of subsidizing landline phone service for poor Americans, paid for with an extra charge on phone bills. To participate in the program, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), consumers must either have an income that is at or below 135 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or participate in a number of assistance programs, including Medicaid, Head Start or Supplemental Security Income. In 2008, the plan was extended to supply cellphones and cellular service as many Americans began using those devices as their primary telephone.
“It's a government-run, taxpayer-funded program that's running wild and costing more and more."
- Rep. Tim Griffin
The program, according to FCC officials, has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone service, which is essential to finding a job or getting help during an emergency. To that end, the percentage of low-income households with phone service has increased from 80 percent in 1985 when the program began to nearly 92 percent in 2011.
A message seeking comment from White House officials on the federal program was not returned Friday.
A family of four with an income of about $30,000 can qualify for a subsidized line, according to Bloomberg News. The program is available to consumers in every state, territory, commonwealth and on tribal lands.
In 2008, there were 7.1 million Lifeline accounts nationwide. There are 12.5 million today, according to Bloomberg News. About half of those are mobile phones sold by Miami-based TracFone, Sprint and hundreds of smaller regional companies. The government pays those carriers up to $10 per month for each program subscriber. Users, in turn, get free phones and 250 minutes of monthly airtime.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., received a mailed solicitation last year informing her she was eligible for a phone, leading her to question the program.
“I am troubled by the expansive potential for the program to be abused," McCaskill wrote the FCC in December.
The FCC, meanwhile, announced in July that comprehensive reforms to the program had saved nearly $43 million and were on track to save $200 million in 2012. The reforms included eliminating unnecessary subsidies, cutting off duplicative subscriptions and requiring better proof of eligibility.
By Joshua Rhett Miller Published September 29, 2012
FoxNews.com
A viral video of an Obama supporter touting her “Obama phone” has put the spotlight on an obscure federal program that provides discounted phone service to qualifying low-income Americans.
“Keep Obama as president,” the animated woman says on the video. “He gave us a phone.”
The video is drawing attention to the government program — Lifeline — as a national debate unfolds on entitlements and the growing percentage of Americans who pay no income taxes and get a long menu of government benefits. But even though some beneficiaries may credit President Obama for providing the phones, Lifeline is an extension of a program that has existed since 1985. Still, critics including Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., note the program has swelled from $772 million in 2008 to $1.6 billion.
“It's a government-run, taxpayer-funded program that's running wild and costing more and more,” reads Griffin’s official House of Representatives website.
Private carriers who contract with the government, including TracPhone and Sprint, have websites intended to publicize the program. Some attempt to dispel the program’s connection to the president, such as freegovernmentcellphones.net, while others, including obamaphone.net, embrace it.
“The free Obama phone is an important program, especially for low income families that would otherwise not have access to basic communications,” the homepage of obamaphone.net reads.
The site does, however, clarify that Obama did not start the program and that there's no such thing as an "Obama phone."
"It’s true that government provides free cellphones to the poor and disabled people," the site reads. "But the Obama part is not true as Obama didn’t initiate this program. It’s on the run [sic] since the administration of Reagan."
Griffin, who introduced H.R. 3481 in November to end the program, claims to have evidence of dead people getting free cell phones in the mail, ineligible people getting multiple phones and electronic kiosks in convenience stores to encourage people to get the phones.
“The truth is, though, that taxpayers are footing the bill,” the website reads. “The program is called Lifeline, but in reality it's turned into Uncle Sam's Unlimited Plan.”
Lifeline was originally envisioned as a means of subsidizing landline phone service for poor Americans, paid for with an extra charge on phone bills. To participate in the program, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), consumers must either have an income that is at or below 135 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or participate in a number of assistance programs, including Medicaid, Head Start or Supplemental Security Income. In 2008, the plan was extended to supply cellphones and cellular service as many Americans began using those devices as their primary telephone.
“It's a government-run, taxpayer-funded program that's running wild and costing more and more."
- Rep. Tim Griffin
The program, according to FCC officials, has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone service, which is essential to finding a job or getting help during an emergency. To that end, the percentage of low-income households with phone service has increased from 80 percent in 1985 when the program began to nearly 92 percent in 2011.
A message seeking comment from White House officials on the federal program was not returned Friday.
A family of four with an income of about $30,000 can qualify for a subsidized line, according to Bloomberg News. The program is available to consumers in every state, territory, commonwealth and on tribal lands.
In 2008, there were 7.1 million Lifeline accounts nationwide. There are 12.5 million today, according to Bloomberg News. About half of those are mobile phones sold by Miami-based TracFone, Sprint and hundreds of smaller regional companies. The government pays those carriers up to $10 per month for each program subscriber. Users, in turn, get free phones and 250 minutes of monthly airtime.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., received a mailed solicitation last year informing her she was eligible for a phone, leading her to question the program.
“I am troubled by the expansive potential for the program to be abused," McCaskill wrote the FCC in December.
The FCC, meanwhile, announced in July that comprehensive reforms to the program had saved nearly $43 million and were on track to save $200 million in 2012. The reforms included eliminating unnecessary subsidies, cutting off duplicative subscriptions and requiring better proof of eligibility.
Friday, September 28, 2012
State-Run Media.....Lying to the American people Again...
I am getting sick and tired of the state-run media doctoring the truth to play to their own biased views....I guess when you have a President that can't tell the truth then maybe the left wing media do not think they need to tell the truth to the American People either...
I wouldn't believe ANYTHING that Obama and his goons say about this call...I would believe that Obama made time for the call just because he knew Romney was talking with Netanyahu today....
September 28, 2012, 1:32 PM. By Jared Favole and Colleen McCain Nelson
Obama, Netanyahu Discuss Iran in Phone Call.
President Barack Obama spoke Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran’s nuclear program and the two reiterated their stance that Iran shouldn’t have a nuclear weapon, the White House said.
“The two leaders discussed a range of security issues, and the President reaffirmed his and our country’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security,” the White House said in a brief summary of the call. “The two leaders underscored that they are in full agreement on the shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Their call comes amid increasing tension between the two leaders. Mr. Netanyahu has pressured Mr. Obama to take a more aggressive stance toward Iran, and in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly in New York Thursday the Israeli leader urged global powers to set a strict limit on Tehran’s nuclear fuel production as the clear “red line” that would trigger military strikes.
He also left room for a diplomatic solution –Mr. Obama’s preferred approach– by suggesting Israel wouldn’t considering attacking Iran until the spring of next year. He said by then Iran will have amassed enough medium-enriched uranium to convert into fuel for a nuclear bomb in a matter of weeks or months.
Mr. Netanyahu “welcomed” Mr. Obama’s comments Tuesday to world leaders about Iran, the White House said. Mr. Obama told the gathering of world leaders in New York that the U.S. “will do what we must” to ensure Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon.
This is their second call in the last several weeks, and may do little to silence those who have criticized Mr. Obama for not meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in person while he’s in the U.S. The White House has said they didn’t meet because of scheduling conflicts. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Mr. Netanyahu for over an hour Thursday in New York.
The last time Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu spoke, two weeks ago, the call lasted about an hour and was prompted by sharp attacks from the Israeli leader about the Obama administration’s Israeli policy. This call lasted more than 20 minutes, according to a White House official.
Also Friday, Mitt Romney said that he spoke to Mr. Netanyahu about Iran’s nuclear capability. He said they discussed where the “red line” ought to be drawn, but the Republican presidential candidate said he didn’t feel comfortable revealing the details of the call.
“We have, very much have the same interest to make sure that Iran does not develop nuclear capability, which would threaten the existence of Israel, threaten devastation potentially in other nations in the world, and we must make every effort to prevent them from developing that nuclear capability,” Mr. Romney said.
Mr. Romney said he thinks that it is possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities, and he doesn’t believe that military action will be necessary. But he didn’t rule it out.
“I can’t take that option off the table,” Mr. Romney told reporters aboard a flight to Boston. “It must be something which is known by the Iranians as a possible tool to be employed to prevent them from becoming nuclear. But I certainly hope that we can prevent any military action from having to be taken.”
When describing the differences between his position and the president’s, Mr. Romney said the president has moved closer to Mr. Romney’s view on Iran.
“From the very beginning, I thought crippling sanctions needed to be put in place,” Mr. Romney said. “Part is to see action as opposed to just words. His words more recently are more consistent with the words I’ve been speaking for some time, and we’ll see what actions he pursues.”
Obama, Netanyahu Discuss Iran in Phone Call.
President Barack Obama spoke Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran’s nuclear program and the two reiterated their stance that Iran shouldn’t have a nuclear weapon, the White House said.
“The two leaders discussed a range of security issues, and the President reaffirmed his and our country’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security,” the White House said in a brief summary of the call. “The two leaders underscored that they are in full agreement on the shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Their call comes amid increasing tension between the two leaders. Mr. Netanyahu has pressured Mr. Obama to take a more aggressive stance toward Iran, and in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly in New York Thursday the Israeli leader urged global powers to set a strict limit on Tehran’s nuclear fuel production as the clear “red line” that would trigger military strikes.
He also left room for a diplomatic solution –Mr. Obama’s preferred approach– by suggesting Israel wouldn’t considering attacking Iran until the spring of next year. He said by then Iran will have amassed enough medium-enriched uranium to convert into fuel for a nuclear bomb in a matter of weeks or months.
Mr. Netanyahu “welcomed” Mr. Obama’s comments Tuesday to world leaders about Iran, the White House said. Mr. Obama told the gathering of world leaders in New York that the U.S. “will do what we must” to ensure Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon.
This is their second call in the last several weeks, and may do little to silence those who have criticized Mr. Obama for not meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in person while he’s in the U.S. The White House has said they didn’t meet because of scheduling conflicts. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Mr. Netanyahu for over an hour Thursday in New York.
The last time Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu spoke, two weeks ago, the call lasted about an hour and was prompted by sharp attacks from the Israeli leader about the Obama administration’s Israeli policy. This call lasted more than 20 minutes, according to a White House official.
Also Friday, Mitt Romney said that he spoke to Mr. Netanyahu about Iran’s nuclear capability. He said they discussed where the “red line” ought to be drawn, but the Republican presidential candidate said he didn’t feel comfortable revealing the details of the call.
“We have, very much have the same interest to make sure that Iran does not develop nuclear capability, which would threaten the existence of Israel, threaten devastation potentially in other nations in the world, and we must make every effort to prevent them from developing that nuclear capability,” Mr. Romney said.
Mr. Romney said he thinks that it is possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities, and he doesn’t believe that military action will be necessary. But he didn’t rule it out.
“I can’t take that option off the table,” Mr. Romney told reporters aboard a flight to Boston. “It must be something which is known by the Iranians as a possible tool to be employed to prevent them from becoming nuclear. But I certainly hope that we can prevent any military action from having to be taken.”
When describing the differences between his position and the president’s, Mr. Romney said the president has moved closer to Mr. Romney’s view on Iran.
“From the very beginning, I thought crippling sanctions needed to be put in place,” Mr. Romney said. “Part is to see action as opposed to just words. His words more recently are more consistent with the words I’ve been speaking for some time, and we’ll see what actions he pursues.”
Obama is simply Weak and more than willing to LIE to the American People IF it benefits him....
Obama Miscalculated Politics of Terrorism
By Chris Stirewalt Power Play Published September 28, 2012
“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now.”
-- A “senior American law enforcement official” talking to the New York Times about the fact that the scene of a successful terrorist attack against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya is too dangerous for FBI agents to visit.
Today in Iraq, there was a massive prison break in which dozens of baddies broke out of a prison in Saddam Hussein’s hometown. The inmates, including suspected al Qaeda members, took control of the prison and then shot their way out, leaving 10 guards dead.
The scariest part of the proposition is that al Qaeda members on the outside may have helped their comrades pull it off.
This is bad news for the West in general as it shows another sign of al Qaeda regaining a foothold in the Middle East after many years in decline. Just as prior to the U.S.-led war on the organization that began after the 9/11 attacks, the organization is finding weak, wicked or unstable countries in which to operate.
But this is also bad news for the re-election hopes of President Obama, who has pinned his re-election strategy on a three-point argument: Republican nominee Mitt Romney is a scoundrel unfit for the office and, as Vice President Joe Biden often says, Usama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.
Leaving aside the fact that General Motors is still on federal life support, the argument is a potent one.
The daring raid that killed bin Laden was the high point of Obama’s term. While he had greater accomplishments, particularly his more than $1 trillion in stimulus measures, his 2010 health law and a massive package of bank regulations, those things were mostly unpopular. Killing the most hated man in what was once known as Christendom is all upside.
This perception of Obama as the vanquisher of al Qaeda was not only reinforced by the president’s frequent mentions of it but by leaks from the administration that cast Obama as a philosopher/warrior contemplating a kill list for his armada of drones and weighing carefully his power of life and death over his enemies.
The only times Obama has much talked about radical Islamist terrorism in the campaign, he has sought to reinforce the notion that the war is won and he won it. He promises constant vigilance, but suggests that the season of anxiety for the nation is over.
Imagine then, the alarm that rose within Team Obama when on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, terrorists pulled off a daring, successful attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the American ambassador and three others.
Thanks to the reporting of FOX News colleague Bret Baier, we now know that the administration had evidence that the killings were part of a terrorist attack. For Islamists to have pulled off such as strike on Sept. 11 was bad enough. That they did it in a nation where NATO had just installed a new government was worse.
After months of vouching for the ascendant Islamist movement across the region as moderate and peaceful, the president found his own ambassador killed at the hands of Islamists.
Compounding the problem for Obama was that he was already feeling a squeeze of foreign policy. It had been reported that the president wasn’t taking most of his daily intelligence briefings in person, preferring to read a written report on his iPad. Meanwhile, Republicans and Israelis were ramping up the pressure on the president to take a harder line against Iran’s nuclear program and the theocracy’s ally in Syria.
This was not a helpful time to have al Qaeda suddenly show itself capable of such a brazen attack, especially if the administration did not take adequate steps to prepare for such a strike – especially not in an election year.
The public response from the president and his team was to not discuss the attack but instead focus on a internet clip of a never-made movie that mocked the founder of Islam, Mohammed. The picture painted by Team Obama was of downtrodden Muslims understandably offended by such blasphemy being whipped into a violent frenzy by opportunists, with the rioters being sort of the bitter clingers of Cairo and Benghazi.
But after more than a week of focusing on the film and not the attack – including a stunning turn by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday shows – the administration began opening the door to the existence of an Islamist plot and a deliberate attack. The word was getting out and it was time to get ahead of the issue.
But it was too late. As details began to emerge, officials scrambled to show their tough-minded stance on terrorism. The White House press secretary, the secretaries of State and Defense and others all stood up. But not the president, from whose lips the T word have never passed when it comes to the Libya attack.
When talking to female voters while being “eye candy” on daytime chat shows or addressing world leaders at the U.N., the president instead continued to focus on the YouTube clip, denouncing it as a provocation as well as the response of the provoked. After all, if all the Islamist warriors have been killed by SEALs or drones or scattered to the four corners of the earth, how could there be an attack by Islamist warriors?
But in trying to duck and cover on the nature of the attack, the president has worsened and prolonged his political discomfort on the issue. Rather than stepping out early on to show his command and control, the president is left trying to explain the gaps and lapses in the story he and his team told.
His decision to diminish the attack may have looked like a smart political move at the time, but it is proving to be a serious miscalculation.
Whether it’s the Libya debacle, the prison break in Iraq, the slaughter in Syria or Iran’s nuclear defiance, there are lots of signs now that things are heading the wrong way in the Middle East. And it’s happening as the president makes his closing argument that America is stronger and more respected abroad than when he took office.
These problems go not only to the argument on foreign policy but also Obama’s claims on transparency and vigilance. And it’s a most unfortunate moment to have such a scandal.
By Chris Stirewalt Power Play Published September 28, 2012
“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now.”
-- A “senior American law enforcement official” talking to the New York Times about the fact that the scene of a successful terrorist attack against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya is too dangerous for FBI agents to visit.
Today in Iraq, there was a massive prison break in which dozens of baddies broke out of a prison in Saddam Hussein’s hometown. The inmates, including suspected al Qaeda members, took control of the prison and then shot their way out, leaving 10 guards dead.
The scariest part of the proposition is that al Qaeda members on the outside may have helped their comrades pull it off.
This is bad news for the West in general as it shows another sign of al Qaeda regaining a foothold in the Middle East after many years in decline. Just as prior to the U.S.-led war on the organization that began after the 9/11 attacks, the organization is finding weak, wicked or unstable countries in which to operate.
But this is also bad news for the re-election hopes of President Obama, who has pinned his re-election strategy on a three-point argument: Republican nominee Mitt Romney is a scoundrel unfit for the office and, as Vice President Joe Biden often says, Usama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.
Leaving aside the fact that General Motors is still on federal life support, the argument is a potent one.
The daring raid that killed bin Laden was the high point of Obama’s term. While he had greater accomplishments, particularly his more than $1 trillion in stimulus measures, his 2010 health law and a massive package of bank regulations, those things were mostly unpopular. Killing the most hated man in what was once known as Christendom is all upside.
This perception of Obama as the vanquisher of al Qaeda was not only reinforced by the president’s frequent mentions of it but by leaks from the administration that cast Obama as a philosopher/warrior contemplating a kill list for his armada of drones and weighing carefully his power of life and death over his enemies.
The only times Obama has much talked about radical Islamist terrorism in the campaign, he has sought to reinforce the notion that the war is won and he won it. He promises constant vigilance, but suggests that the season of anxiety for the nation is over.
Imagine then, the alarm that rose within Team Obama when on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, terrorists pulled off a daring, successful attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the American ambassador and three others.
Thanks to the reporting of FOX News colleague Bret Baier, we now know that the administration had evidence that the killings were part of a terrorist attack. For Islamists to have pulled off such as strike on Sept. 11 was bad enough. That they did it in a nation where NATO had just installed a new government was worse.
After months of vouching for the ascendant Islamist movement across the region as moderate and peaceful, the president found his own ambassador killed at the hands of Islamists.
Compounding the problem for Obama was that he was already feeling a squeeze of foreign policy. It had been reported that the president wasn’t taking most of his daily intelligence briefings in person, preferring to read a written report on his iPad. Meanwhile, Republicans and Israelis were ramping up the pressure on the president to take a harder line against Iran’s nuclear program and the theocracy’s ally in Syria.
This was not a helpful time to have al Qaeda suddenly show itself capable of such a brazen attack, especially if the administration did not take adequate steps to prepare for such a strike – especially not in an election year.
The public response from the president and his team was to not discuss the attack but instead focus on a internet clip of a never-made movie that mocked the founder of Islam, Mohammed. The picture painted by Team Obama was of downtrodden Muslims understandably offended by such blasphemy being whipped into a violent frenzy by opportunists, with the rioters being sort of the bitter clingers of Cairo and Benghazi.
But after more than a week of focusing on the film and not the attack – including a stunning turn by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday shows – the administration began opening the door to the existence of an Islamist plot and a deliberate attack. The word was getting out and it was time to get ahead of the issue.
But it was too late. As details began to emerge, officials scrambled to show their tough-minded stance on terrorism. The White House press secretary, the secretaries of State and Defense and others all stood up. But not the president, from whose lips the T word have never passed when it comes to the Libya attack.
When talking to female voters while being “eye candy” on daytime chat shows or addressing world leaders at the U.N., the president instead continued to focus on the YouTube clip, denouncing it as a provocation as well as the response of the provoked. After all, if all the Islamist warriors have been killed by SEALs or drones or scattered to the four corners of the earth, how could there be an attack by Islamist warriors?
But in trying to duck and cover on the nature of the attack, the president has worsened and prolonged his political discomfort on the issue. Rather than stepping out early on to show his command and control, the president is left trying to explain the gaps and lapses in the story he and his team told.
His decision to diminish the attack may have looked like a smart political move at the time, but it is proving to be a serious miscalculation.
Whether it’s the Libya debacle, the prison break in Iraq, the slaughter in Syria or Iran’s nuclear defiance, there are lots of signs now that things are heading the wrong way in the Middle East. And it’s happening as the president makes his closing argument that America is stronger and more respected abroad than when he took office.
These problems go not only to the argument on foreign policy but also Obama’s claims on transparency and vigilance. And it’s a most unfortunate moment to have such a scandal.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
It's more and more obvious that Obama and his Goons have been lying to the American People for more than two weeks.....
Some Administration Officials Were Concerned About Initial White House Push Blaming Benghazi Attack on Mob, Video*
Even before Defense Secretary Leon Panetta contradicted the initial story about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, today, Obama administration officials told ABC News they were concerned after the White House began pushing the line that the attack was spontaneous and not the work of terrorists.
Events were too uncertain, and suspicions had been aroused, officials said.
Panetta today said that the attack that killed four Americans on the anniversary of 9/11 was not only carried out by terrorists — it was pre-meditated.
“As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place,” Panetta told reporters, “it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”
The White House first suggested the attack was spontaneous — the result of an anti-Muslim video that incited mobs throughout the region.
“Let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14.
When ABC News pressed Carney on whether that included the Benghazi attack, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American men were killed, Carney said, “we certainly don’t know. We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”
On THIS WEEK on September 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said, “our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
White House officials acknowledge that assessments have changed over time as intelligence has been confirmed, but they insist that no information was given in bad faith and there was no attempt to downplay the attack.
But sources told ABC News that intelligence officials on the ground immediately suspected the attack was not tied to the movie at all. The attackers knew Ambassador Stevens had been trying to flee — to a so-called safe house half a mile away. That building was hit with insurgent mortars — suggesting the terrorists knew what they were doing.
As of Thursday afternoon, officials from the Obama administration were not even 100 percent certain that the protest of the anti-Muslim film in Benghazi occurred outside the U.S. diplomatic post.
In a closed-door briefing with top officials, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described the mortar attack on the safe house as suggesting that the terrorist attack was one of opportunity, not pre-meditation, since the mortars were not used to attack the consulate earlier in the day.
Campaigning in Virginia Beach today, President Obama seemed eager to paint the terrorist threat as waning. “Al Qaeda’s on the path to defeat,” he said. “Bin Laden is dead.”
But the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake on Wednesday reported that intelligence officials said “the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.” “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours,” one of the officials told Lake. “These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”
It’s certainly possible that intelligence officials wouldn’t want the terrorists to know that the U.S. knew about them, but that does beg the question as to why White House officials seemed to strongly suggest the attack was merely the work of an unruly mob.
President Obama has repeatedly said the investigation is on to find the killers and bring them to justice. But as first reported by CNN, ABC news has learned that the FBI — which has been dispatched to Libya to take the lead in the investigation — has not even reached Benghazi yet.
This is largely due to safety concerns. Indeed, as of Thursday, senior State Department officials said that the diplomatic presence in Libya – which was already down to emergency-level staffing – would be further reduced.
A spokeswoman for Ambassador Rice, Erin Pelton, issued a statement to ABC News regarding her appearances on THIS WEEK and other Sunday shows on September 16, saying Ambassador Rice’s comments in those interviews “were prefaced at every turn with a clear statement that an FBI investigation was underway that would provide the definitive accounting of the events that took place in Benghazi. At every turn Ambassador Rice provided — and said she was providing — the best information and the best assessment that the Administration had at the time, based on what was provided to Ambassador Rice and other senior U.S. officials by the U.S. intelligence community.”
*This post has been updated
Even before Defense Secretary Leon Panetta contradicted the initial story about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, today, Obama administration officials told ABC News they were concerned after the White House began pushing the line that the attack was spontaneous and not the work of terrorists.
Events were too uncertain, and suspicions had been aroused, officials said.
Panetta today said that the attack that killed four Americans on the anniversary of 9/11 was not only carried out by terrorists — it was pre-meditated.
“As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place,” Panetta told reporters, “it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”
The White House first suggested the attack was spontaneous — the result of an anti-Muslim video that incited mobs throughout the region.
“Let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14.
When ABC News pressed Carney on whether that included the Benghazi attack, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American men were killed, Carney said, “we certainly don’t know. We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”
On THIS WEEK on September 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said, “our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
White House officials acknowledge that assessments have changed over time as intelligence has been confirmed, but they insist that no information was given in bad faith and there was no attempt to downplay the attack.
But sources told ABC News that intelligence officials on the ground immediately suspected the attack was not tied to the movie at all. The attackers knew Ambassador Stevens had been trying to flee — to a so-called safe house half a mile away. That building was hit with insurgent mortars — suggesting the terrorists knew what they were doing.
As of Thursday afternoon, officials from the Obama administration were not even 100 percent certain that the protest of the anti-Muslim film in Benghazi occurred outside the U.S. diplomatic post.
In a closed-door briefing with top officials, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described the mortar attack on the safe house as suggesting that the terrorist attack was one of opportunity, not pre-meditation, since the mortars were not used to attack the consulate earlier in the day.
Campaigning in Virginia Beach today, President Obama seemed eager to paint the terrorist threat as waning. “Al Qaeda’s on the path to defeat,” he said. “Bin Laden is dead.”
But the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake on Wednesday reported that intelligence officials said “the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.” “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours,” one of the officials told Lake. “These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”
It’s certainly possible that intelligence officials wouldn’t want the terrorists to know that the U.S. knew about them, but that does beg the question as to why White House officials seemed to strongly suggest the attack was merely the work of an unruly mob.
President Obama has repeatedly said the investigation is on to find the killers and bring them to justice. But as first reported by CNN, ABC news has learned that the FBI — which has been dispatched to Libya to take the lead in the investigation — has not even reached Benghazi yet.
This is largely due to safety concerns. Indeed, as of Thursday, senior State Department officials said that the diplomatic presence in Libya – which was already down to emergency-level staffing – would be further reduced.
A spokeswoman for Ambassador Rice, Erin Pelton, issued a statement to ABC News regarding her appearances on THIS WEEK and other Sunday shows on September 16, saying Ambassador Rice’s comments in those interviews “were prefaced at every turn with a clear statement that an FBI investigation was underway that would provide the definitive accounting of the events that took place in Benghazi. At every turn Ambassador Rice provided — and said she was providing — the best information and the best assessment that the Administration had at the time, based on what was provided to Ambassador Rice and other senior U.S. officials by the U.S. intelligence community.”
*This post has been updated
The Obama Regime and his Band of Goons Certainly have NO RESPECT for the Rule of Law.....
Sebelius hitting Obama campaign trail again after violation
Published September 27, 2012 FoxNews.com
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apparently isn't taking a campaign trail time-out despite being cited for violating federal law with her politicking earlier this year.
The secretary is set to speak at Obama campaign events this weekend in New Hampshire.
But the campaign is trying to avoid the legal pitfalls that snagged Sebelius the last time around when she was accused of making political statements in her official capacity.
An Obama campaign spokesman told FoxNews.com that in New Hampshire, "she is attending in her personal capacity."
The Office of Special Counsel earlier this month determined that Sebelius broke the law when she made "extemporaneous partisan remarks" in a February speech in North Carolina. The office found she was in violation of the Hatch Act, which bars federal workers from using their official capacity to sway elections.
The White House, though, indicated Sebelius probably would not be punished over the incident -- noting the event was reclassified to meet the "correct standard" and taxpayers were reimbursed. Sebelius also met with "ethics experts to ensure this never happens again," a White House spokesman said earlier this month.
The Union Leader in New Hampshire first reported that Sebelius would be in the Granite State on Friday and Saturday for stops in several cities and towns.
According to the Leader, the campaign is stressing that she's there in her "personal capacity," and that the campaign was even asking reporters to "refrain from using her official title at the event and in related press reports, and note that we will not be taking questions concerning her official responsibilities."
Sebelius, in a letter to OSC, called her prior violation "technical and minor."
Representatives with The Catholic Association called earlier for Sebelius' resignation over the incident.
"Throughout her tenure at Health and Human Services, most of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' actions have advanced the president's political interests," they said in a joint statement.
The last Executive Branch official to leave office following an alleged Hatch Act violation was former General Services Administration head Lurita Doan in 2008 -- though there were other controversies that preceded her resignation
Published September 27, 2012 FoxNews.com
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apparently isn't taking a campaign trail time-out despite being cited for violating federal law with her politicking earlier this year.
The secretary is set to speak at Obama campaign events this weekend in New Hampshire.
But the campaign is trying to avoid the legal pitfalls that snagged Sebelius the last time around when she was accused of making political statements in her official capacity.
An Obama campaign spokesman told FoxNews.com that in New Hampshire, "she is attending in her personal capacity."
The Office of Special Counsel earlier this month determined that Sebelius broke the law when she made "extemporaneous partisan remarks" in a February speech in North Carolina. The office found she was in violation of the Hatch Act, which bars federal workers from using their official capacity to sway elections.
The White House, though, indicated Sebelius probably would not be punished over the incident -- noting the event was reclassified to meet the "correct standard" and taxpayers were reimbursed. Sebelius also met with "ethics experts to ensure this never happens again," a White House spokesman said earlier this month.
The Union Leader in New Hampshire first reported that Sebelius would be in the Granite State on Friday and Saturday for stops in several cities and towns.
According to the Leader, the campaign is stressing that she's there in her "personal capacity," and that the campaign was even asking reporters to "refrain from using her official title at the event and in related press reports, and note that we will not be taking questions concerning her official responsibilities."
Sebelius, in a letter to OSC, called her prior violation "technical and minor."
Representatives with The Catholic Association called earlier for Sebelius' resignation over the incident.
"Throughout her tenure at Health and Human Services, most of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' actions have advanced the president's political interests," they said in a joint statement.
The last Executive Branch official to leave office following an alleged Hatch Act violation was former General Services Administration head Lurita Doan in 2008 -- though there were other controversies that preceded her resignation
Boy Don't you Wish BiBi was Running the United States....He Represents Leadership...
Netanyahu: 'Clear red line' needed to stop Iran's nuclear program
Published September 27, 2012 FoxNews.com
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a dramatic speech to the United Nations, employed a simple diagram to hammer home his plea that the international community set a "clear red line" over Iran's nuclear program -- warning that a nuclear-armed Iran would be tantamount to a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda.
Netanyahu claimed Thursday that Iran would have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by next summer. His remarks before the U.N. General Assembly amounted to an appeal to the U.S. and other nations to join Israel in drawing a line that Iran cannot cross without risking a military response.
Netanyahu argued that nothing less than the "security of the world" is at stake.
"The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program," Netanyahu said. "I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down."
The prime minister displayed a "diagram" showing a crudely drawn sketch of a bomb, divided into sections representing the three stages of uranium enrichment. Using a marker, Netanyahu drew a red line before the end of the second stage.
"Red lines don't lead to war, red lines prevent war," he said. "Nothing could imperil the world more than a nuclear-armed Iran."
Netanyahu warned that it would be a "dangerous assumption" to think Iran could be deterred like the former Soviet Union.
"Imagine their long-range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs -- who among you would feel safe in the Middle East?" he said.
The remarks were a challenge to the Obama administration, which has sought to hold off Israeli military action, which could result in the U.S. being drawn into a chaotic conflict with elections looming. Though Obama has tried to wield economic sanctions and international diplomatic efforts to make progress with Iran, Netanyahu claims those efforts have failed. Israeli leaders have issued a series of warnings in recent weeks suggesting that if Iran's uranium enrichment program continues it may soon stage a unilateral military strike, flouting even American wishes. On Sunday, Iranian leaders suggested they may strike Israeli preemptively if they feel threatened.
The issue has led to tensions between Obama and Netanyahu. That perception was heightened after Obama did not make plans to meet with the prime minister this week during his visit to New York -- though the two recently spoke by phone.
Obama briefly addressed the Iranian threat during his remarks Tuesday to the United Nations, saying the U.S. "will do what we must" to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu said Thursday "I very much appreciate the president's position."
Netanyahu began his U.N. address with an implicit rebuke to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, telling the history of the Jewish people's ties to the land of Israel and vowing that they would remain there.
"Throughout our history the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who sought our destruction," he said. "The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again."
A few hours before Netanyahu flew to the U.S., Ahmadinejad spoke at length about his vision for a "new world order" during his speech at the U.N. His speech on Wednesday happened to fall on Yom Kippur, the most sacred day on the Jewish calendar, devoted to fasting, prayer and introspection.
Netanyahu issued a statement condemning the speech soon after the fast ended. "On the day when we pray to be inscribed in the book of life a platform was given to a dictatorial regime that strives, at every opportunity, to sentence us to death," Netanyahu said.
At the U.N. on Thursday, Netanyahu also said he wants a "durable peace" with the Palestinians - but rebuked Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for his remarks just moments earlier.
"We won't solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the U.N.," Netanyahu said.
Earlier, Abbas had said he will seek to apply to the General Assembly for nonmember status as a sovereign country while cautioning that the expansion of Israeli settlements hurts chances for a two-state solution.
"Despite all the complexities of the prevailing reality and all the frustrations that abound, we say before the international community there is still a chance -- maybe the last -- to save the two-state solution and to salvage peace,'' Abbas said.
Palestinian officials said the bid is likely to be submitted on Nov. 29. The effort was not intended to pose a threat to Israel, Abbas said.
"We are not seeking to delegitimize Israel, but rather establish a state that should be established: Palestine," Abbas said.
He also warned the assembly that Israel is promising a "new catastrophe" if it continues with current policies in the West Bank.
Obama is an American DISGRACE...!
Busy Obama Campaigning In Virginia Today
by Keith Koffler on September 27, 2012, 8:07 am
President Obama, who has failed to make room in his schedule to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu or any other world leader during this week’s opening of the UN General Assembly, will be campaigning today in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
The trip will take four hours out of his day, but Obama only has one campaign event scheduled. The president will leave the White House at around 10:00 am ET and return at about 2:00 pm. He has no other public events scheduled.
Netanyahu, whose country may soon be going to war with Iran, will meet with Secretary of State Clinton instead. Others who have found room in their schedule to meet with Netanyahu are Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper – who recently threw all of Iran’s diplomats out of his country – and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The White House, which has been under fire for ducking Netanyahu, has not ruled out a meeting, and may in the end bow to pressure to schedule one. Netanyahu is in the United States until Saturday night.
Netanyahu could easily make the quick hop to Washington from New York. And Obama has demonstrated an ability to take a spontaneous trip to New York, having used Air Force One to escort his wife there for a date in
Weak Obama shows up at the U. N. AGAIN...
5 Ways Obama Disappointed at the United Nations
President Obama spoke to the United Nations General Assembly in New York yesterday - and what a disappointing speech it was.
He actually scrapped his original speech outline to focus on the controversial YouTube video that many have suggested sparked recent anti-American attacks in the Middle East, including one in Libya that killed a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans. Making this video the focus of his speech was inappropriate. He should have used the international platform to make an unapologetic case for freedom. The President failed the American people—and America’s allies—in five major ways.
1. He failed to give a robust defense of free speech.
In tripping over the YouTube video that was offensive to Muslims, the President seemed to validate other countries’ disregard for freedom of speech:
I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond.
He also admonished people for offending others, saying, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.”
The President probably thought he was being clever, turning the argument around on those calling for restrictions on free speech. But it would not be surprising if there were a number of nodding heads in the audience agreeing that all such “incitement” should be banned. That comment could, and probably will, be interpreted as a backhand endorsement of efforts to restrict free speech like the “defamation of religions” resolutions offered by the Organization of the Islamic Conference in the U.N. and the Human Rights Council.
Heritage expert Brett Schaefer responded that:
President Obama spent less time defending free speech than he did outlining a vague vision for a world with tolerance and diversity as its key ideals. Perhaps this lopsided emphasis sought to reinforce the administration’s dubious claim that only hateful speech is to blame for the attacks on our embassies, but the overall effect was to lend credibility to the notion that governments should be policing speech.
Instead of free speech, the Obama Administration has had a policy of apologetic speech. The Administration supported a U.N. “anti-blasphemy” resolution last year that threatens freedom of speech by condemning any expression that could be deemed “defamation of religion.” The President’s words yesterday continued this weak, apologetic stance.
2. He tiptoed around Iran.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will speak to the U.N. today, but he’s already made his positions quite clear. This week, Iran has escalated threats against Israel and the United States, and Ahmadinejad has said that Israel should be “eliminated” and that a “new order” should emerge, without the U.S. as a superpower.
In response, the President made a “milquetoast statement,” said Heritage’s Nile Gardiner, projecting “a dangerous leading-from-behind mentality at a time when the free world needs bold U.S. leadership.” The President continues to pay lip service to diplomacy with Iran, when the time has clearly passed for this approach.
3. He failed to give Israel strong backing.
Heritage’s Gardiner lamented that “Yet again, Obama drew moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a theme he has frequently expounded upon since taking office.” Palestine continues to edge its way into U.N. organizations, pursuing statehood without negotiating with Israel. The President should have taken a hard line against this. Instead, he made U.S. support for Israel—America’s steadfast ally in the Middle East—a mere footnote in his speech.
4. He did not promote economic freedom.
Heritage experts said ahead of the speech that President Obama should call for “a new era of economic liberalization to expand economic freedom around the globe and ensure that the opportunities of a globalized and interdependent world economy are available to all citizens.” This is the key to raising people out of poverty and giving them alternatives to joining radicalized groups. However, the Obama Administration has failed to increase economic freedom at home or to promote it vigorously abroad.
5. He failed to project American strength.
The United Nations General Assembly is an odd place where oppressive dictators are given the same platform as free nations. It is a unique opportunity to remind the world why people risk their lives to come to America, and to recommit to protecting the freedoms that make that risk worthwhile. As Heritage’s Kim Holmes has said:
We should never allow the U.N. or anyone to abuse the mantra of human rights to undermine our sovereign constitutional system which not only protects our God-given rights and the liberty to govern ourselves but also offers the best model for others to do the same.
No American should speak apologetically about America. Especially not the President.
It's Obama and Harry Reid's Fault!!!
I don't blame the House....I blame Obama for NO LEADERSHIP at all on this or most other issues...and certainly "dirty" Harry Reid who hasn't done a thing in the Senate in two years...
Obama and Congress Are Choosing to Cause a Recession
President Obama recently said, "The most important lesson I've learned is you can't change Washington from the inside." That's demoralizing to hear when a recession is bearing down on the economy—and it's an inside job.
The Congressional Budget Office has forecasted a fresh recession to hit next year if Taxmageddon, a nearly $500 billion tax increase, hits the nation and Congress and the President drive us off the "fiscal cliff." President Obama has done nothing but ignore this warning.
In a new report, Heritage's J.D. Foster explains that the very fact that we can see a recession coming is shocking. "Economic forecasters almost never forecast recessions," he says. "Those few who do forecast recessions do so with great frequency and belong to the doom-and-gloom school of economics." Yet we can see this one a mile away:
What makes this recession different, and predictable, is that the disruptive force is Washington policies and, even more, Washington behaviors—policies and behaviors for which the nation can thank the Congress and especially President Obama. The policy is Taxmageddon. The behavior is intentional, insistent inaction. The consequence is recession. The response should and will be outrage.
The problem is extremely clear. Congress has left town and isn't scheduled to return until after the November election. With every day that passes, the economy drags, as the uncertainty of January 1 looms.
Economists talk a lot about "uncertainty." Why is uncertainty such a big deal?
Business owners are looking at next year's taxes already and thinking they can't afford to hire. Investors are holding back from expansions and new ventures. This massive uncertainty is holding back all growth and keeping unemployment stubbornly above 8 percent, while millions have dropped out of the labor force because they are so discouraged.
Uncertainty affects your personal finances, too. Think about this: If you're a middle-class American family, Taxmageddon means that your taxes are going up about $4,100 next year. How does that affect your thinking about traveling for Thanksgiving in a couple of months? Buying Christmas presents? What about saving for retirement or your children's education?
It starts to hit home that you have to come up with that $4,100 somehow. You're going to have to make cuts in your lifestyle to be able to pay this tax increase.
The best the economy has to offer right now is a holding pattern. Holding onto our money and holding our breath, waiting for the gigantic shoe of Taxmageddon to drop on top of us.
The President said outside forces were needed to change Washington. But this tax increase—and the recession it will bring—are an inside job. Congress and the President are the only ones who can prevent it.
The House passed a bill that would prevent the largest share of Taxmageddon, but when Congress came back to Washington for the blink of an eye after its August recess, it failed to finish the job. Everyone promptly dashed back to the campaign trail.
As Foster said, "President Obama should demand that Congress return to defuse Taxmageddon, and Congress should immediately heed his call. The job need only take a few days away from their campaigning."
Obama and Congress Are Choosing to Cause a Recession
President Obama recently said, "The most important lesson I've learned is you can't change Washington from the inside." That's demoralizing to hear when a recession is bearing down on the economy—and it's an inside job.
The Congressional Budget Office has forecasted a fresh recession to hit next year if Taxmageddon, a nearly $500 billion tax increase, hits the nation and Congress and the President drive us off the "fiscal cliff." President Obama has done nothing but ignore this warning.
In a new report, Heritage's J.D. Foster explains that the very fact that we can see a recession coming is shocking. "Economic forecasters almost never forecast recessions," he says. "Those few who do forecast recessions do so with great frequency and belong to the doom-and-gloom school of economics." Yet we can see this one a mile away:
What makes this recession different, and predictable, is that the disruptive force is Washington policies and, even more, Washington behaviors—policies and behaviors for which the nation can thank the Congress and especially President Obama. The policy is Taxmageddon. The behavior is intentional, insistent inaction. The consequence is recession. The response should and will be outrage.
The problem is extremely clear. Congress has left town and isn't scheduled to return until after the November election. With every day that passes, the economy drags, as the uncertainty of January 1 looms.
Economists talk a lot about "uncertainty." Why is uncertainty such a big deal?
Business owners are looking at next year's taxes already and thinking they can't afford to hire. Investors are holding back from expansions and new ventures. This massive uncertainty is holding back all growth and keeping unemployment stubbornly above 8 percent, while millions have dropped out of the labor force because they are so discouraged.
Uncertainty affects your personal finances, too. Think about this: If you're a middle-class American family, Taxmageddon means that your taxes are going up about $4,100 next year. How does that affect your thinking about traveling for Thanksgiving in a couple of months? Buying Christmas presents? What about saving for retirement or your children's education?
It starts to hit home that you have to come up with that $4,100 somehow. You're going to have to make cuts in your lifestyle to be able to pay this tax increase.
The best the economy has to offer right now is a holding pattern. Holding onto our money and holding our breath, waiting for the gigantic shoe of Taxmageddon to drop on top of us.
The President said outside forces were needed to change Washington. But this tax increase—and the recession it will bring—are an inside job. Congress and the President are the only ones who can prevent it.
The House passed a bill that would prevent the largest share of Taxmageddon, but when Congress came back to Washington for the blink of an eye after its August recess, it failed to finish the job. Everyone promptly dashed back to the campaign trail.
As Foster said, "President Obama should demand that Congress return to defuse Taxmageddon, and Congress should immediately heed his call. The job need only take a few days away from their campaigning."
Obama is Just Disgusting....He's Liv'in Large on Our Dollar.....
Obama is Just Disgusting...and Obama says Romney is out of touch....He's and his witch of a wife are the ones that are totally out of touch..
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book
Published: 11:32 PM 09/26/2012 By Alex Pappas
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.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
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 air line.”
“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.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?”
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
Here is a sample of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president:
The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 “czars.”
The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.
The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie. “Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year,” Gray writes.
The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: “First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year.”
The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: “Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine,” Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. “It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.”
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book
Published: 11:32 PM 09/26/2012 By Alex Pappas
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.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
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 air line.”
“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.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?”
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
Here is a sample of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president:
The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 “czars.”
The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.
The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie. “Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year,” Gray writes.
The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: “First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year.”
The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: “Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine,” Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. “It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.”
Another GREAT JOB Barack....Just Another Reason to Send Him Home on November 6tth....
Sep 27, 8:45 AM EDT
US economy grew 1.3 percent in second quarter
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy grew at an even more sluggish pace in the April-June quarter than previously believed as farm production in the Midwest was reduced by a severe drought.
The overall economy grew at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the spring, down from its previous estimate of 1.7 percent growth, the Commerce Department said Thursday. The big revision reflected that the government slashed its estimate of crop production by $12 billion.
About half of the downward revision to growth came from the decline in farm inventories. But other areas were weaker as well including slower consumer spending and less growth in exports.
The 1.3 percent growth in the spring followed a sluggish 2 percent growth rate in the first quarter, rates too slow to lower unemployment. The unemployment rate was 8.1 percent in August. Most expect it to stay around 8 percent for the rest of this year because they anticipate little pickup in growth.
Before Thursday's revision in the April-June figures, the consensus view was that the economy expanded in the July-September quarter at a lackluster pace of between 1.5 percent to 2 percent. They expected the final three months of the year will be about the same. For all of 2011, the economy grew 1.8 percent.
A weak economy and high unemployment could hurt President Barack Obama's re-election chances and bolster Republican nominee Mitt Romney's campaign.
The slow growth and anemic job creation prompted the Federal Reserve earlier this month to take some dramatic steps in an effort to jump-start activity.
The Fed announced it was launching a third round of bond purchases in an effort to push long-term interest rates down further to stimulate home purchases and other economic activity. The Fed said it would buy $40 billion each month in mortgage-backed securities and would keep up the purchases and possibly expand them until the job market showed significant improvement.
Opponents of the program, including some on the Fed, have argued that the effort will have little impact, given that interest rates are already so low, and could wind up causing inflation troubles down the road.
US economy grew 1.3 percent in second quarter
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy grew at an even more sluggish pace in the April-June quarter than previously believed as farm production in the Midwest was reduced by a severe drought.
The overall economy grew at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the spring, down from its previous estimate of 1.7 percent growth, the Commerce Department said Thursday. The big revision reflected that the government slashed its estimate of crop production by $12 billion.
About half of the downward revision to growth came from the decline in farm inventories. But other areas were weaker as well including slower consumer spending and less growth in exports.
The 1.3 percent growth in the spring followed a sluggish 2 percent growth rate in the first quarter, rates too slow to lower unemployment. The unemployment rate was 8.1 percent in August. Most expect it to stay around 8 percent for the rest of this year because they anticipate little pickup in growth.
Before Thursday's revision in the April-June figures, the consensus view was that the economy expanded in the July-September quarter at a lackluster pace of between 1.5 percent to 2 percent. They expected the final three months of the year will be about the same. For all of 2011, the economy grew 1.8 percent.
A weak economy and high unemployment could hurt President Barack Obama's re-election chances and bolster Republican nominee Mitt Romney's campaign.
The slow growth and anemic job creation prompted the Federal Reserve earlier this month to take some dramatic steps in an effort to jump-start activity.
The Fed announced it was launching a third round of bond purchases in an effort to push long-term interest rates down further to stimulate home purchases and other economic activity. The Fed said it would buy $40 billion each month in mortgage-backed securities and would keep up the purchases and possibly expand them until the job market showed significant improvement.
Opponents of the program, including some on the Fed, have argued that the effort will have little impact, given that interest rates are already so low, and could wind up causing inflation troubles down the road.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
More GREAT Reasons to Make Certain Obama Gets Sent Home For Good in November.....
55 percent of small business owners would not start company today, blame Obama
September 26, 2012 | 10:39 am
Joel Gehrke
Fifty-five percent of small business owners and manufacturers would not have started their businesses in today’s economy, according to a new poll that also reports 69 percent say President Obama’s regulatory policies have hurt their businesses.
“There is far too much uncertainty, too many burdensome regulations and too few policymakers willing to put aside their egos and fulfill their responsibilities to the American people,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which commissioned the poll along with the National Federation of Independent Businesses. “To fix this problem, we need immediate action on pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that put manufacturers in the United States in a position to compete and succeed in an ever-more competitive global economy.”
The poll reports another ominous statistic for job creation: “67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.” Why? Because “President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers,” according to 69 percent of the business owners surveyed.
Here are the key findings in the poll, as highlighted by NAM:
•67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.
•69 percent of small business owners and manufacturers say President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers.
•55 percent say they would not start a business today given what they know now and in the current environment.
•54 percent say other countries like China and India are more supportive of their small businesses and manufacturers than the United States.
“Instead of smoothing the way, our government continues to erect more barriers to growth through burdensome regulations that increase costs for small businesses and all Americans,” NFIB president Dan Danner said.
Those statistics suggest that even Democratic and independent small business owners criticized Obama, because only 46 percent of poll participants identified as Republicans, per Roll Call.
“It’s clear that small business owners and manufacturers are becoming increasingly more frustrated by the federal government’s inability to solve America’s economic problems,” Bill McInturff, whose Public Opinion Strategies conducted the poll. “Manufacturers place most of the blame squarely on policies coming out of Washington.”
Another GREAT Reason to Make Certain Obama Does NOT Get Reelected...
Household income down 8.2 percent since Obama took office, study shows
Published September 26, 2012 FoxNews.com
Median household incomes have fallen 8.2 percent since President Obama took office and continue to drop despite the official end of the recession, a new study shows.
Data compiled by Sentier Research found that since the economic recovery technically began in June 2009, median household income has dropped 5.7 percent. As of August, that median income was $50,678 -- also down 1.1 percent from the month prior.
And since Obama took office in January 2009, the median income has fallen 8.2 percent, from $55,198 to its present figure.
"The August decline in real median annual household income is indicative of a struggling economy," Sentier said in its report.
"Even though we are technically in an economic recovery, real median annual household income is having a difficult time maintaining its present level, much less 'recovering.'"
The figures continue to paint a dim portrait of the nation's post-recession economic rebound, and are sure to factor into the robust economic debate on the campaign trail.
At a rally in Westerville, Ohio, on Wednesday, Mitt Romney challenged protesters at the site, asking them if they really wanted "four more years" of trillion-dollar deficits and declining take-home pay.
Obama continues to hold onto a lead in several swing state polls, though. A poll Wednesday from Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times showed Obama leading in Ohio by 10 points even as roughly half the voters surveyed listed the economy as their most important issue.
The nation's unemployment rate has dropped from its peak at more than 10 percent to 8.1 percent in August.
But the drop belies persistent problems in the economy. Many are leaving the workforce or settling for part-time work -- the latter of which helps explain why unemployment rates are going down while median income falls. Sentier noted in its study that changes in hourly earnings and hours worked affects the household income level.
According to the study, the average number of hours per week worked in August was 34.4 -- slightly below the 34.6 hour average in December 2007.
The income figures, which are based on Census data, follow a Census report showing the poverty rate in 2011 at 15 percent. The number of people in poverty last year was 46.2 million, up from 37.3 million in 2007 before the start of the recession. The poverty line for a family of four was defined by the Census in 2011 as a household salary of just over $23,000.
The household income level has not been declining every month. Sentier's report showed several monthly increases in late 2011, followed by another drop at the beginning of 2012.
Published September 26, 2012 FoxNews.com
Median household incomes have fallen 8.2 percent since President Obama took office and continue to drop despite the official end of the recession, a new study shows.
Data compiled by Sentier Research found that since the economic recovery technically began in June 2009, median household income has dropped 5.7 percent. As of August, that median income was $50,678 -- also down 1.1 percent from the month prior.
And since Obama took office in January 2009, the median income has fallen 8.2 percent, from $55,198 to its present figure.
"The August decline in real median annual household income is indicative of a struggling economy," Sentier said in its report.
"Even though we are technically in an economic recovery, real median annual household income is having a difficult time maintaining its present level, much less 'recovering.'"
The figures continue to paint a dim portrait of the nation's post-recession economic rebound, and are sure to factor into the robust economic debate on the campaign trail.
At a rally in Westerville, Ohio, on Wednesday, Mitt Romney challenged protesters at the site, asking them if they really wanted "four more years" of trillion-dollar deficits and declining take-home pay.
Obama continues to hold onto a lead in several swing state polls, though. A poll Wednesday from Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times showed Obama leading in Ohio by 10 points even as roughly half the voters surveyed listed the economy as their most important issue.
The nation's unemployment rate has dropped from its peak at more than 10 percent to 8.1 percent in August.
But the drop belies persistent problems in the economy. Many are leaving the workforce or settling for part-time work -- the latter of which helps explain why unemployment rates are going down while median income falls. Sentier noted in its study that changes in hourly earnings and hours worked affects the household income level.
According to the study, the average number of hours per week worked in August was 34.4 -- slightly below the 34.6 hour average in December 2007.
The income figures, which are based on Census data, follow a Census report showing the poverty rate in 2011 at 15 percent. The number of people in poverty last year was 46.2 million, up from 37.3 million in 2007 before the start of the recession. The poverty line for a family of four was defined by the Census in 2011 as a household salary of just over $23,000.
The household income level has not been declining every month. Sentier's report showed several monthly increases in late 2011, followed by another drop at the beginning of 2012.
Obama - Again Lying to the American Public....
I Can't Understand how ANYONE could believe ANYTHING that Obama or his team of goons would say or refer to.....It's all lies....It's all tainted....It's all fiction...
Obama donor wrote ‘nonpartisan’ congressional report backing liberal tax policy
Published: 11:40 PM 09/25/2012 By Matthew Boyle
The author of a new nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) report concluding that tax cuts for upper-income earners in America don’t spur economic growth is a frequent donor to the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama, political donation records show.
Thomas Hungerford authored “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945″ for CRS. The report, published Sept. 14, came to a conclusion that supports Obama’s tax policy.
Hungerford’s LinkedIn profile shows he has worked at CRS since 2005. In 2008, political donation records published by the Center for Responsive Politics show Hungerford donated $3,500 to Obama’s campaign. He gave the president another $500 in August 2012. Since 2009, Hungerford has also donated $2,450 to Democratic Party organizations such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
In October 2000, when he worked as an economist for the Social Security Administration, Hungerford donated $500 to Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Al Gore.
The CRS is billed as a nonpartisan arbiter of facts and, like the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office, exists to help members of Congress understand issues. When it writes and issues a report, it does so at the request of a member of Congress. Unless that member says publicly that he or she asked for such a report, the identity of the member or members requesting it remains confidential. CRS reports are not automatically disseminated to the public, either.
In an email to The Daily Caller, CRS spokeswoman Janine D’Addario said that the agency “provides non-partisan, objective analysis to Congress.”
“CRS employees are respected public servants of the legislative branch of the federal government, who, in service to the majority and minority in both chambers of Congress, produce objective analyses,” D’Addario said. “At CRS, employees’ personal political views or previous employment are not permitted to influence their non-partisan work for Congress.”
“There is no requirement for Library of Congress, including Congressional Research employees, to disclose their contributions to individuals or to organizations,” D’Addario added.
In a follow-up phone interview, D’Addario told TheDC that this report — like all CRS reports — went through a lengthy review process.
“He [Hungerford] does the analysis, and then the analysis is reviewed by multiple levels before the document is issued.”
“The work that CRS does for Congress is objective and nonpartisan,” D’Addario added. “To help insure that, all of the work that comes out of the organization goes through peer-review, section-review, division-review and then departmental-review. There is a multilayer review process to help ensure objectivity and nonpartisanship. This paper followed that process.”
She said the people who review Hungerford’s work “would be peer review, his immediate supervisor, his immediate supervisor’s supervisor — the manager of the division he’s in — and then CRS has a departmental review panel that reads through every piece that goes out.”
When asked who the reviewers were, D’Addario wouldn’t agree to publicly release a list of everyone involved in preparing and reviewing the report. “That could be compiled, but it’s not something I would share,” D’Addario said.
The reason she gave is “because the way we conduct our research is an in-house activity. It’s just not appropriate to share with the public.”
When pressed again on who was involved in the review process, she said, “CRS stands by the objectivity of its work. All the work we do is intended to be confidential to the Congress.”
“I don’t think I have to prove what I’ve said about CRS’ objectivity and work,” she added.
She also refused to comment when asked if anyone involved with this report has ever donated to a Republican. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on that,” she said. “Number one, I don’t know. And secondly, I don’t think — that’s about an individual’s personal business.”
The report concluded, “The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth.”
“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth,” the report continued. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.”
It also argues that “the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation argued that the CRS report “failed” in its logic.
“In fact, these stylistic correlations prove nothing,” Curtis Dubay wrote for Heritage’s Foundry blog. “In short, the economy is more complicated than this simplistic approach can acknowledge. For the analysis to prove anything, it needed to account for countless other economic and policy factors, many specific to a given period, and determine how those factors influenced economic growth in the period in question. With this as background, the analysis would then have to isolate the effect lower rates had on growth.”
Dubay argued that CRS is normally “admirably and diligently” objective in their analyses, but that “the longstanding episodic exception has been in tax policy.”
CRS reports are only distributed to members of Congress and their staffers, who can choose to distribute them to the press, as occurred with this report.
After the report’s release, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, CNBC and BusinessWeek, among other media outlets, ran headlines touting the report. The liberal Huffington Post ran a headline that said tax cuts “linked to income inequality, not economic growth.”
Liberal advocacy organization ThinkProgress — the media arm of progressive Center for American Progress — claimed victory too.
Ryan’s congressional counterpart, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen — the ranking Democratic member of the House Budget Committee — touted the report as well.
“This report confirms that Republicans’ trickle-down economics policies lifted the yachts while the boats ran aground,” Van Hollen said in a statement to TheDC. “The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, tilted toward the wealthiest Americans, did not deliver the economic growth Republicans promised. Jobs went down while deficits shot up. Yet the GOP wants to double down on this failed approach. There are many good reasons to overhaul our out-of-date tax code — but giving bonus tax breaks to millionaires and special interests is certainly not one of them.”
Van Hollen’s press staff didn’t answer follow-up questions about whether CRS should prove the report really is nonpartisan.
A representative for Michigan Rep. Sander Levin — the ranking Democratic member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy — did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment.
D’Addario said she doesn’t think the CRS owes any public explanation about the author’s Democratic involvement, since her agency serves Congress exclusively.
“It is well known certainly to the Congress — which is whom we work for exclusively — that the work of the Congressional Research Service is objective, nonpartisan and confidential,” she told TheDC. “That is well known. Our work is intended to be confidential to the Congress, but we do know our work is distributed more widely not by us but by others.”
Obama donor wrote ‘nonpartisan’ congressional report backing liberal tax policy
Published: 11:40 PM 09/25/2012 By Matthew Boyle
The author of a new nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) report concluding that tax cuts for upper-income earners in America don’t spur economic growth is a frequent donor to the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama, political donation records show.
Thomas Hungerford authored “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945″ for CRS. The report, published Sept. 14, came to a conclusion that supports Obama’s tax policy.
Hungerford’s LinkedIn profile shows he has worked at CRS since 2005. In 2008, political donation records published by the Center for Responsive Politics show Hungerford donated $3,500 to Obama’s campaign. He gave the president another $500 in August 2012. Since 2009, Hungerford has also donated $2,450 to Democratic Party organizations such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
In October 2000, when he worked as an economist for the Social Security Administration, Hungerford donated $500 to Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Al Gore.
The CRS is billed as a nonpartisan arbiter of facts and, like the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office, exists to help members of Congress understand issues. When it writes and issues a report, it does so at the request of a member of Congress. Unless that member says publicly that he or she asked for such a report, the identity of the member or members requesting it remains confidential. CRS reports are not automatically disseminated to the public, either.
In an email to The Daily Caller, CRS spokeswoman Janine D’Addario said that the agency “provides non-partisan, objective analysis to Congress.”
“CRS employees are respected public servants of the legislative branch of the federal government, who, in service to the majority and minority in both chambers of Congress, produce objective analyses,” D’Addario said. “At CRS, employees’ personal political views or previous employment are not permitted to influence their non-partisan work for Congress.”
“There is no requirement for Library of Congress, including Congressional Research employees, to disclose their contributions to individuals or to organizations,” D’Addario added.
In a follow-up phone interview, D’Addario told TheDC that this report — like all CRS reports — went through a lengthy review process.
“He [Hungerford] does the analysis, and then the analysis is reviewed by multiple levels before the document is issued.”
“The work that CRS does for Congress is objective and nonpartisan,” D’Addario added. “To help insure that, all of the work that comes out of the organization goes through peer-review, section-review, division-review and then departmental-review. There is a multilayer review process to help ensure objectivity and nonpartisanship. This paper followed that process.”
She said the people who review Hungerford’s work “would be peer review, his immediate supervisor, his immediate supervisor’s supervisor — the manager of the division he’s in — and then CRS has a departmental review panel that reads through every piece that goes out.”
When asked who the reviewers were, D’Addario wouldn’t agree to publicly release a list of everyone involved in preparing and reviewing the report. “That could be compiled, but it’s not something I would share,” D’Addario said.
The reason she gave is “because the way we conduct our research is an in-house activity. It’s just not appropriate to share with the public.”
When pressed again on who was involved in the review process, she said, “CRS stands by the objectivity of its work. All the work we do is intended to be confidential to the Congress.”
“I don’t think I have to prove what I’ve said about CRS’ objectivity and work,” she added.
She also refused to comment when asked if anyone involved with this report has ever donated to a Republican. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on that,” she said. “Number one, I don’t know. And secondly, I don’t think — that’s about an individual’s personal business.”
The report concluded, “The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth.”
“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth,” the report continued. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.”
It also argues that “the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation argued that the CRS report “failed” in its logic.
“In fact, these stylistic correlations prove nothing,” Curtis Dubay wrote for Heritage’s Foundry blog. “In short, the economy is more complicated than this simplistic approach can acknowledge. For the analysis to prove anything, it needed to account for countless other economic and policy factors, many specific to a given period, and determine how those factors influenced economic growth in the period in question. With this as background, the analysis would then have to isolate the effect lower rates had on growth.”
Dubay argued that CRS is normally “admirably and diligently” objective in their analyses, but that “the longstanding episodic exception has been in tax policy.”
CRS reports are only distributed to members of Congress and their staffers, who can choose to distribute them to the press, as occurred with this report.
After the report’s release, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, CNBC and BusinessWeek, among other media outlets, ran headlines touting the report. The liberal Huffington Post ran a headline that said tax cuts “linked to income inequality, not economic growth.”
Liberal advocacy organization ThinkProgress — the media arm of progressive Center for American Progress — claimed victory too.
Ryan’s congressional counterpart, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen — the ranking Democratic member of the House Budget Committee — touted the report as well.
“This report confirms that Republicans’ trickle-down economics policies lifted the yachts while the boats ran aground,” Van Hollen said in a statement to TheDC. “The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, tilted toward the wealthiest Americans, did not deliver the economic growth Republicans promised. Jobs went down while deficits shot up. Yet the GOP wants to double down on this failed approach. There are many good reasons to overhaul our out-of-date tax code — but giving bonus tax breaks to millionaires and special interests is certainly not one of them.”
Van Hollen’s press staff didn’t answer follow-up questions about whether CRS should prove the report really is nonpartisan.
A representative for Michigan Rep. Sander Levin — the ranking Democratic member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy — did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment.
D’Addario said she doesn’t think the CRS owes any public explanation about the author’s Democratic involvement, since her agency serves Congress exclusively.
“It is well known certainly to the Congress — which is whom we work for exclusively — that the work of the Congressional Research Service is objective, nonpartisan and confidential,” she told TheDC. “That is well known. Our work is intended to be confidential to the Congress, but we do know our work is distributed more widely not by us but by others.”
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Obama is Just a Total Embarrassment to America....
Obama wants regular NFL refs back
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times September 25, 2012, 02:17PM
President Obama hasn't had time to meet one-on-one with world leaders while in New York at the U.N., but he has kept abreast of much more parochial concerns — including the NFL's referee situation.
On Tuesday, he tweeted that he wants the football league to get a deal done that will bring back the regular referees, whom owners have locked out.
"NFL fans on both sides of the aisle hope the refs' lockout is settled soon. — bo"
But that wasn't the end of it. On Air Force One, jetting back from New York, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama was shocked at the ending of Monday's game between the Packers and Seahawks, which ended with a questionable touchdown call.
"He said that what happened in that game is a perfect example of why both sides need to come together, resolve their differences so that the regular refs can get back on the field and we can start focusing on a game that so many of us love rather than debating whether of not a game is won or lost because of a bad call," Mr. Carney said.
It's the second time he's weighed in, following an interview last week with a Cleveland radio station, which his Twitter feed also tweeted:
"Is it just me or do we have to get our regular refs back?"
Mr. Obama went on to tell WTAM radio he can't get involved with the dispute, but was speaking as a sports fan.
Some politicians, though, have decided to try to do something about it.
In New Jersey, Sen. Steve Sweeney on Tuesday said he'll introduce legislation that would ban replacement refs from working games in his state. He said it's a safety issue and the game is too dangerous without the regular refs on the field.
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times September 25, 2012, 02:17PM
President Obama hasn't had time to meet one-on-one with world leaders while in New York at the U.N., but he has kept abreast of much more parochial concerns — including the NFL's referee situation.
On Tuesday, he tweeted that he wants the football league to get a deal done that will bring back the regular referees, whom owners have locked out.
"NFL fans on both sides of the aisle hope the refs' lockout is settled soon. — bo"
But that wasn't the end of it. On Air Force One, jetting back from New York, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama was shocked at the ending of Monday's game between the Packers and Seahawks, which ended with a questionable touchdown call.
"He said that what happened in that game is a perfect example of why both sides need to come together, resolve their differences so that the regular refs can get back on the field and we can start focusing on a game that so many of us love rather than debating whether of not a game is won or lost because of a bad call," Mr. Carney said.
It's the second time he's weighed in, following an interview last week with a Cleveland radio station, which his Twitter feed also tweeted:
"Is it just me or do we have to get our regular refs back?"
Mr. Obama went on to tell WTAM radio he can't get involved with the dispute, but was speaking as a sports fan.
Some politicians, though, have decided to try to do something about it.
In New Jersey, Sen. Steve Sweeney on Tuesday said he'll introduce legislation that would ban replacement refs from working games in his state. He said it's a safety issue and the game is too dangerous without the regular refs on the field.
Once Again Rush is Correct...
Rush Limbaugh: Obama ‘promoting’ film at U.N.
By KEVIN CIRILLI | 9/25/12 4:14 PM EDT
Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday that President Barack Obama is “promoting” an anti-Muslim video to “distract” people from blaming him for attacks on U.S. outposts earlier this month.
Limbaugh criticized Obama for referencing “Innocence of Muslims” in his speech Tuesday to the United Nations. A trailer for film has been cited in protests and violence at U.S. diplomatic missions around the world, including the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“Every time Obama talks about this video, he creates a curiosity about it. Most people haven’t seen it. Now he goes to the U.N. and he starts talking about vile, rank, whatever, however he described it movie. I guarantee you people say, ‘Whoa, whoa! I want to see that. What’s he talking about?’ And they make a mad dash to YouTube to try to find the thing. In essence, Obama is promoting it,” Limbaugh said on his radio show, according to a transcript.
He added: “It’s a one-man promotional department for what he calls a disgusting, inflammatory video. All of that is to distract from the fact that the embassies were vulnerable and were attacked on his watch, and it’s a green light to more violence.”
By KEVIN CIRILLI | 9/25/12 4:14 PM EDT
Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday that President Barack Obama is “promoting” an anti-Muslim video to “distract” people from blaming him for attacks on U.S. outposts earlier this month.
Limbaugh criticized Obama for referencing “Innocence of Muslims” in his speech Tuesday to the United Nations. A trailer for film has been cited in protests and violence at U.S. diplomatic missions around the world, including the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“Every time Obama talks about this video, he creates a curiosity about it. Most people haven’t seen it. Now he goes to the U.N. and he starts talking about vile, rank, whatever, however he described it movie. I guarantee you people say, ‘Whoa, whoa! I want to see that. What’s he talking about?’ And they make a mad dash to YouTube to try to find the thing. In essence, Obama is promoting it,” Limbaugh said on his radio show, according to a transcript.
He added: “It’s a one-man promotional department for what he calls a disgusting, inflammatory video. All of that is to distract from the fact that the embassies were vulnerable and were attacked on his watch, and it’s a green light to more violence.”
Elizabeth Warren is just one more corrupt, dishonest democrat...certainly worthy of being part of the Obama Goon Gang....
Warren now faces questions about her law licenses, legal defense of big biz
Published September 25, 2012 FoxNews.com
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren lists the address for her legal practice as Massachusetts but no records show her having a license to practice law in the state, according to an Ivy League law professor.
Cornell law professor William Jacobsen says he found no law license under Warren’s last name or her maiden name, Herring, during an exhaustive search of state records. Jacobsen said he also confirmed with a clerk at the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers that Warren has never even applied for a license.
In addition, Jacobsen said he could find no record of Warren getting a permit to practice law at the address – her law professor office at Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., he wrote Monday in his blog legalinsurrection.com. Jacobson also posted several legal documents that included the Harvard address.
Issues about Warren’s legal practices began surfacing last week in her first debate with GOP Sen. Scott Brown – another attack in what has been a hard-hitting, razor-close race from the start. An averaging of polls by the RealClearPolitics website has Warren leading by less than 2 percentage points.
Brown -- who on Thursday repeatedly referred to Warren as "professor" during the candidates’ first debate -- reminded viewers that Warren in 2009 represented Travelers Insurance Co. before the Supreme Court in an asbestos-related case.
Warren was paid $212,000 for three years of work in a case that involved thousands of asbestos victims and was “notable because Warren, who has gained fame for defending consumers against big business, was in this case working on behalf of a big business,” The Boston Globe wrote.
In addition, Warren in 1995, as a Harvard Law professor, attempted to help the LTV steel conglomerate avoid paying $140 million in benefits to retired coal miners, The Boston Herald reported Tuesday. Warren wrote a petition to the Supreme Court challenging a lower court ruling for the miners. The high court never took up the case, but Warren was paid roughly $10,000, according to documents obtained by the newspaper.
The Warren campaign had not responded to requests to verify whether the candidate has a license in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
Jacobsen writes that Warren listed in a 2008 resume that she has a license to practice law in Texas and New Jersey. Texas records show the license is inactive, but doesn’t indicate when. And Warren unexplainable on Sept. 11 cancelled her New Jersey license, making it unclear if or where she was licensed during the Travelers case.
The questions about Warren’s legal licenses follow repeated ones about whether she falsely or exaggeratedly used her Native American ancestry to get law professor jobs at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.
A genealogist says his research shows Warren is 1-32nd Native American Indian.
Brown posted an ad Monday that revisits and repeated questions about whether Warren used the Native American Indian status for professional gain.
On Tuesday, Warren released a new, 30-second ad against the attacks.
“I never asked for and never got any benefit because of my heritage,” Warren says in the ad. “The people who hired me said they didn’t even know about it. Scott Brown can keep attacking my family, but I’m going to keep fighting for yours.”
Published September 25, 2012 FoxNews.com
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren lists the address for her legal practice as Massachusetts but no records show her having a license to practice law in the state, according to an Ivy League law professor.
Cornell law professor William Jacobsen says he found no law license under Warren’s last name or her maiden name, Herring, during an exhaustive search of state records. Jacobsen said he also confirmed with a clerk at the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers that Warren has never even applied for a license.
In addition, Jacobsen said he could find no record of Warren getting a permit to practice law at the address – her law professor office at Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., he wrote Monday in his blog legalinsurrection.com. Jacobson also posted several legal documents that included the Harvard address.
Issues about Warren’s legal practices began surfacing last week in her first debate with GOP Sen. Scott Brown – another attack in what has been a hard-hitting, razor-close race from the start. An averaging of polls by the RealClearPolitics website has Warren leading by less than 2 percentage points.
Brown -- who on Thursday repeatedly referred to Warren as "professor" during the candidates’ first debate -- reminded viewers that Warren in 2009 represented Travelers Insurance Co. before the Supreme Court in an asbestos-related case.
Warren was paid $212,000 for three years of work in a case that involved thousands of asbestos victims and was “notable because Warren, who has gained fame for defending consumers against big business, was in this case working on behalf of a big business,” The Boston Globe wrote.
In addition, Warren in 1995, as a Harvard Law professor, attempted to help the LTV steel conglomerate avoid paying $140 million in benefits to retired coal miners, The Boston Herald reported Tuesday. Warren wrote a petition to the Supreme Court challenging a lower court ruling for the miners. The high court never took up the case, but Warren was paid roughly $10,000, according to documents obtained by the newspaper.
The Warren campaign had not responded to requests to verify whether the candidate has a license in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
Jacobsen writes that Warren listed in a 2008 resume that she has a license to practice law in Texas and New Jersey. Texas records show the license is inactive, but doesn’t indicate when. And Warren unexplainable on Sept. 11 cancelled her New Jersey license, making it unclear if or where she was licensed during the Travelers case.
The questions about Warren’s legal licenses follow repeated ones about whether she falsely or exaggeratedly used her Native American ancestry to get law professor jobs at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.
A genealogist says his research shows Warren is 1-32nd Native American Indian.
Brown posted an ad Monday that revisits and repeated questions about whether Warren used the Native American Indian status for professional gain.
On Tuesday, Warren released a new, 30-second ad against the attacks.
“I never asked for and never got any benefit because of my heritage,” Warren says in the ad. “The people who hired me said they didn’t even know about it. Scott Brown can keep attacking my family, but I’m going to keep fighting for yours.”
Iwouldn't ordinarily agree with ANYTHING that Madonna would say...but I do Agree that Obama is a Black (well half black) Muslim....
Madonna calls President Obama a 'black Muslim,' says she'll strip onstage if he wins second term
Published September 25, 2012 FoxNews.com
Madonna asked everyone in the audience of her Washington, DC performance Monday night to vote for President Obama because he is a "black Muslim."
"Y’all better vote for f**king Obama, OK? For better or for worse, all right?" the shouted from stage while sipping from a bottle of water with a straw. ""We have a black Muslim in the White House! Now that’s some amazing s**t.”
Madonna, 54, also stripped down to her bra to reveal "Obama" stenciled in big letters on her back, before promising (or warning?): “When Obama is in the White House for a second term I'll take it all off.”
President Obama is not a Muslim.....Says Who...
Published September 25, 2012 FoxNews.com
Madonna asked everyone in the audience of her Washington, DC performance Monday night to vote for President Obama because he is a "black Muslim."
"Y’all better vote for f**king Obama, OK? For better or for worse, all right?" the shouted from stage while sipping from a bottle of water with a straw. ""We have a black Muslim in the White House! Now that’s some amazing s**t.”
Madonna, 54, also stripped down to her bra to reveal "Obama" stenciled in big letters on her back, before promising (or warning?): “When Obama is in the White House for a second term I'll take it all off.”
President Obama is not a Muslim.....Says Who...
Obama's Total Failure in the Middle East...
September 25, 2012 4:00 A.M. By Victor Davis Hanson
President Ethelred
Islamists are taking full advantage of our failure to grasp their intent.
Like old King Ethelred the Unready, who either had no counsel or had no sense, or both, and often paid the Danegeld rather than attempt to deter the Norsemen, so Barack Obama and his lieutenants still believe that they can both appease radical Islam and convince others that is not what they are doing.
Various top-ranking U.S. officials, for instance, following the lead of President Obama himself, for days insisted that the murder of the American ambassador to Libya was a spontaneous act of a crowd that got out of control, enraged by the release of an anti-Islamic video trailer posted by an illiberal private American resident. We were to believe that the fault was not millions of medieval Islamists abroad who hate the West, but one Coptic American at home who had crude taste and ill intent.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney both insisted that the killings of our people in Libya had nothing to do with anti-Americanism, much less anger at or disdain for the White House or administration policy — leaving their audiences wondering at what point in the future they would simply retract or ignore all the untrue things they were now asserting.
Of course, no one believed that narrative — not when the video had been in the public domain for months without incident (is there even a film that follows the trailer?), not when some diplomatic personnel in the Middle East had been put on higher alert in response to Islamist promises of violence, not when it was the iconic eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 killings, not when “protesters” brought in heavy weaponry to assault our facilities, not when there was a long history of radical Islamists using trivial affronts — from Danish cartoons to papal communiqués — as catalysts for preplanned violence.
So why those unusual efforts to downplay the circumstances around the gruesome death of an American ambassador?
The murdering of Americans in Libya is, embarrassingly so, the logical fruition of a failed — and increasingly dangerous — foreign policy in the Middle East. We missed out on siding with the Iranians who went out in the streets in 2009 to protest their country’s theocracy. Instead President Obama warned us about our own past culpable interference in the internal affairs of Iran. But note that Iranian reformers were far more likely to oppose fundamentalist, anti-American theocrats than were the more favored protesters in Egypt two years later. There is now no real obstacle to Iran’s acquisition of the bomb, and administration surrogates in the media instead talk of containment, as if Iran were a Pakistan with an archenemy, 1 billion–strong nuclear India next door.
Our loud announcements of withdrawal from Afghanistan have left us unable even to accompany the allied Afghan army on patrol. We just suffered our worst loss in planes since Vietnam, without press attention or a comment from the commander-in-chief. Few believe that the Taliban will not be in power in 2014. Iraq was once secure and open to discussions over a vestigial American base; now snubbed, it is left intriguing with Iran, the assumed regional hegemon.
The Obama administration was confused about the Egyptian revolution — mum on the old allied authoritarian Hosni Mubarak until it was clear that he would lose power, then rushing in to embrace the dissidents, then declaring the Muslim Brotherhood to be “secular,” when it was clear that the Google crowd would not assume power, as if Cairo was supposed to have been a pre–Palo Alto. Now Morsi, the former Egyptian dissident, who found freedom, employment, and security only in America, lectures us on what we must do to win his friendship, and the conditions under which he is willing to accept nearly $2 billion in American aid.
No one knows what we were doing in Libya — either strategically or tactically — other than offering up the cute phrase “leading from behind,” which was supposed to denote a new hybrid soft/hard-power protocol. Apparently when the crowds appeared to go 51 percent against Qaddafi, the new monster — thought to be in rehabilitation — became once more the old monster worthy of being bombed.
Syria’s Bashar al-Assad went from being a “reformer,” to a thug who had to go, to someone better left out of sight, out of mind. The more the administration declares our relationship with Israel unchanged, the more we know it has deteriorated to the lowest point in the history of the Jewish state — largely because Benjamin Netanyahu has been demonized as a right-wing trouble-maker who on any given day might do something to embarrass the Obama administration in the Arab world during the election campaign. If only he were as smarmy as David Letterman or Whoopi Goldberg, he might have earned an audience with the president.
In short, there is no good or bad administration policy — but rather no policy at all other than braggadocio about the killing of Osama bin Laden and Moammar Qaddafi and Predator score cards.
The murder of Ambassador Stevens may well have been the most horrific killing in our nation’s diplomatic history. The administration’s original narrative — that the ambassador got separated from his security detail, suffocated amid the smoke, and was found unconscious by well-meaning Libyans who, in concern, rushed him to the hospital — cannot be true. Some disturbing rumors and evidence later emerged to the effect that Stevens may have had no real security detail to speak of, but was helped only by the brave ad hoc service of some private security contractors, who gave their lives to save an American diplomat without military support. More disturbing even than the absence of adequate military security was the likelihood that Stevens was attacked viciously by the mob, perhaps sexually brutalized by it, and then taunted by his killers, before being dumped in the street. In the long history of attacks on our embassies, I cannot think of a comparable instance where an ambassador was caught alone, mobbed, tortured, and photographed in extremis — or where an administration was so averse to disclosing any details of his demise.
Obama genuinely seems to believe that he, his administration, our present foreign policy, and America 2012 are somehow not the real objects of hate of the Arab Street mobs. That disconnect was also the theme of his mythmaking in Cairo, of his al-Arabiya interview, and of his apologetic commentary to the French and the Turks: A pre-Obama America was hubristic, insensitive, and culpable for damaged bilateral relations and would be acknowledged as such by an Obama America.
When Daniel Ortega enumerated the crimes of the United States in the presence of the president, Barack Obama did not defend his country, but simply shrugged, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.” In other words, Obama felt that while his country may not have been innocent, he, a mere toddler at the time, most certainly was — and that he is innocent now as well.
In the context of the Middle East, Obama is thus naturally confused by the violence. He had assumed the Islamic mobs realize that America changed after 2008. So while Muslim complaints against the United States certainly had some validity at one time, such writs can no longer be valid after Obama assumed the presidency. The Arab Street could not possibly be angry at Barack Obama, the Nobel laureate and sympathetic supporter of Arab Muslims. The murdering must be an artifact, a fluke brought on by some right-wing, provocative American zealot, whose constitutionally protected rights to obnoxious free expression are overshadowed by the damage he has done in giving millions the impression that a reset America of 2012 still bears some resemblance to the America of 1776 to 2008.
We can see this disconnect in both the serious and the trivial: from Obama’s use of the adjective “natural” to describe unhinged mobs attacking U.S. properties over a video trailer, to his new personalized campaign version of the American flag. In that sense, one cannot entirely damn Mr. Morsi as he lectures America on its shortcomings — given that much of his complaint merely follows up on Obama’s own. Thus he may feel that he is ingratiating himself with the administration by channeling the Cairo speech.
If Obama were a conservative Republican, a George W. Bush for example, the media narrative of Libyagate would be one of an asleep, incompetent president, lieutenants who were brazenly mendacious, an incompetent secretary of state, and an administration conspiracy of silence — juxtaposed with a wider story of a disastrous retreat from Afghanistan, an abandonment of any influence in Iraq, a refusal to recognize the situation in Syria and Egypt — and impotence as a war looms between Iran and Israel.
Will we ever know the circumstances that led to the murder of Ambassador Stevens? Only when government auditors and inquirers feel free to find and disclose the truth, which probably means sometime after the Obama administration is well out of office.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
President Ethelred
Islamists are taking full advantage of our failure to grasp their intent.
Like old King Ethelred the Unready, who either had no counsel or had no sense, or both, and often paid the Danegeld rather than attempt to deter the Norsemen, so Barack Obama and his lieutenants still believe that they can both appease radical Islam and convince others that is not what they are doing.
Various top-ranking U.S. officials, for instance, following the lead of President Obama himself, for days insisted that the murder of the American ambassador to Libya was a spontaneous act of a crowd that got out of control, enraged by the release of an anti-Islamic video trailer posted by an illiberal private American resident. We were to believe that the fault was not millions of medieval Islamists abroad who hate the West, but one Coptic American at home who had crude taste and ill intent.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney both insisted that the killings of our people in Libya had nothing to do with anti-Americanism, much less anger at or disdain for the White House or administration policy — leaving their audiences wondering at what point in the future they would simply retract or ignore all the untrue things they were now asserting.
Of course, no one believed that narrative — not when the video had been in the public domain for months without incident (is there even a film that follows the trailer?), not when some diplomatic personnel in the Middle East had been put on higher alert in response to Islamist promises of violence, not when it was the iconic eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 killings, not when “protesters” brought in heavy weaponry to assault our facilities, not when there was a long history of radical Islamists using trivial affronts — from Danish cartoons to papal communiqués — as catalysts for preplanned violence.
So why those unusual efforts to downplay the circumstances around the gruesome death of an American ambassador?
The murdering of Americans in Libya is, embarrassingly so, the logical fruition of a failed — and increasingly dangerous — foreign policy in the Middle East. We missed out on siding with the Iranians who went out in the streets in 2009 to protest their country’s theocracy. Instead President Obama warned us about our own past culpable interference in the internal affairs of Iran. But note that Iranian reformers were far more likely to oppose fundamentalist, anti-American theocrats than were the more favored protesters in Egypt two years later. There is now no real obstacle to Iran’s acquisition of the bomb, and administration surrogates in the media instead talk of containment, as if Iran were a Pakistan with an archenemy, 1 billion–strong nuclear India next door.
Our loud announcements of withdrawal from Afghanistan have left us unable even to accompany the allied Afghan army on patrol. We just suffered our worst loss in planes since Vietnam, without press attention or a comment from the commander-in-chief. Few believe that the Taliban will not be in power in 2014. Iraq was once secure and open to discussions over a vestigial American base; now snubbed, it is left intriguing with Iran, the assumed regional hegemon.
The Obama administration was confused about the Egyptian revolution — mum on the old allied authoritarian Hosni Mubarak until it was clear that he would lose power, then rushing in to embrace the dissidents, then declaring the Muslim Brotherhood to be “secular,” when it was clear that the Google crowd would not assume power, as if Cairo was supposed to have been a pre–Palo Alto. Now Morsi, the former Egyptian dissident, who found freedom, employment, and security only in America, lectures us on what we must do to win his friendship, and the conditions under which he is willing to accept nearly $2 billion in American aid.
No one knows what we were doing in Libya — either strategically or tactically — other than offering up the cute phrase “leading from behind,” which was supposed to denote a new hybrid soft/hard-power protocol. Apparently when the crowds appeared to go 51 percent against Qaddafi, the new monster — thought to be in rehabilitation — became once more the old monster worthy of being bombed.
Syria’s Bashar al-Assad went from being a “reformer,” to a thug who had to go, to someone better left out of sight, out of mind. The more the administration declares our relationship with Israel unchanged, the more we know it has deteriorated to the lowest point in the history of the Jewish state — largely because Benjamin Netanyahu has been demonized as a right-wing trouble-maker who on any given day might do something to embarrass the Obama administration in the Arab world during the election campaign. If only he were as smarmy as David Letterman or Whoopi Goldberg, he might have earned an audience with the president.
In short, there is no good or bad administration policy — but rather no policy at all other than braggadocio about the killing of Osama bin Laden and Moammar Qaddafi and Predator score cards.
The murder of Ambassador Stevens may well have been the most horrific killing in our nation’s diplomatic history. The administration’s original narrative — that the ambassador got separated from his security detail, suffocated amid the smoke, and was found unconscious by well-meaning Libyans who, in concern, rushed him to the hospital — cannot be true. Some disturbing rumors and evidence later emerged to the effect that Stevens may have had no real security detail to speak of, but was helped only by the brave ad hoc service of some private security contractors, who gave their lives to save an American diplomat without military support. More disturbing even than the absence of adequate military security was the likelihood that Stevens was attacked viciously by the mob, perhaps sexually brutalized by it, and then taunted by his killers, before being dumped in the street. In the long history of attacks on our embassies, I cannot think of a comparable instance where an ambassador was caught alone, mobbed, tortured, and photographed in extremis — or where an administration was so averse to disclosing any details of his demise.
Obama genuinely seems to believe that he, his administration, our present foreign policy, and America 2012 are somehow not the real objects of hate of the Arab Street mobs. That disconnect was also the theme of his mythmaking in Cairo, of his al-Arabiya interview, and of his apologetic commentary to the French and the Turks: A pre-Obama America was hubristic, insensitive, and culpable for damaged bilateral relations and would be acknowledged as such by an Obama America.
When Daniel Ortega enumerated the crimes of the United States in the presence of the president, Barack Obama did not defend his country, but simply shrugged, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.” In other words, Obama felt that while his country may not have been innocent, he, a mere toddler at the time, most certainly was — and that he is innocent now as well.
In the context of the Middle East, Obama is thus naturally confused by the violence. He had assumed the Islamic mobs realize that America changed after 2008. So while Muslim complaints against the United States certainly had some validity at one time, such writs can no longer be valid after Obama assumed the presidency. The Arab Street could not possibly be angry at Barack Obama, the Nobel laureate and sympathetic supporter of Arab Muslims. The murdering must be an artifact, a fluke brought on by some right-wing, provocative American zealot, whose constitutionally protected rights to obnoxious free expression are overshadowed by the damage he has done in giving millions the impression that a reset America of 2012 still bears some resemblance to the America of 1776 to 2008.
We can see this disconnect in both the serious and the trivial: from Obama’s use of the adjective “natural” to describe unhinged mobs attacking U.S. properties over a video trailer, to his new personalized campaign version of the American flag. In that sense, one cannot entirely damn Mr. Morsi as he lectures America on its shortcomings — given that much of his complaint merely follows up on Obama’s own. Thus he may feel that he is ingratiating himself with the administration by channeling the Cairo speech.
If Obama were a conservative Republican, a George W. Bush for example, the media narrative of Libyagate would be one of an asleep, incompetent president, lieutenants who were brazenly mendacious, an incompetent secretary of state, and an administration conspiracy of silence — juxtaposed with a wider story of a disastrous retreat from Afghanistan, an abandonment of any influence in Iraq, a refusal to recognize the situation in Syria and Egypt — and impotence as a war looms between Iran and Israel.
Will we ever know the circumstances that led to the murder of Ambassador Stevens? Only when government auditors and inquirers feel free to find and disclose the truth, which probably means sometime after the Obama administration is well out of office.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Bumbling and Stumbling Axelrod...
Axelrod Stumbling, Bumbling....everything's a "balance way" a "balance approach"...it's all words...all rhetoric....there is NO SUBSTANCE is anything Obama and his "goons" say...
Every American that is paying attention can see right through this Muslim President Obama....He's nothing short of a snake and certainly America's best interest in mind....
Obama cancels election-season meeting with Egyptian Islamist Morsi
Published: 8:11 AM 09/24/2012 By Neil Munro
President Barack Obama has quietly cancelled a politically risky plan to meet this week with Egypt’s new Islamist president.
The plan was cancelled amid a wave of riots and attacks in Arab countries that have damaged Obama’s campaign-trail claim to foreign policy competence.
In 2011, Obama had “bilateral” meetings with 13 Arab and world leaders during the annual U.S. summit. This year, amid the foreign policy meltdown, his schedule shows no so-called “bilats” with any foreign leaders.
The cancelled visit with Morsi was mentioned in a Sept. 23 New York Times article about Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, an Islamist who now governs the Arab region’s most important country.
Despite critical 2011 support from Obama for the revolt that removed Hosni Mubarak, Morsi is now demanding restrictions on U.S. free speech that is critical of Islam, demanding more U.S. support for the anti-Israeli Islamist governments in Gaza and the West Bank, and more financial aid to help the cash-strapped Egyptian government buy food and fuel for its population of 82 million people.
These Islamist demands clash with Obama’s promise of good U.S.-Arab relations made in his June 2009 “New Beginning “ speech in Cairo.
That controversial speech reversed President George W. Bush’s policy of opposition to Islamists’ demands for theocratic governments in Egypt and other Muslim-majority states.
To emphasize the reversal, Obama even invited some members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood movement to his Cairo speech.
Following elections in 2011 and 2012, that Islamist movement now controls Egypt, and is taking steps to end the 1979 peace deal between Egypt and Israel.
Morsi complimented Obama, telling the New York Times that Obama had “decisively and quickly” supported Egypt’s Islamist and smaller secular parties by helping remove Egypt’s autocratic, pro-Western government. The article downplayed the proposed Obama-Morsi meeting, which was highlighted by the Egyptian press in July.
Morsi’s request to meet with Obama “received a cool reception … [from the White House, and] mindful of the complicated election-year politics of a visit with Egypt’s Islamist leader, M. Morsi dropped his request,” claimed the New York Times.
However, the cancelled meeting reflects the recent schism between Obama and Morsi.
In July, White House spokesman Jay Carney said he expected a meeting at this week’s United Nations summit.
“I expect that the President will have a chance to meet with or see President Morsi at the UN General Assembly,” Carney told reporters during the midday press conference at the White House.
“We haven’t worked details out of that, but we expect that he will be able to see him.”
By August 22, amid increasing hostility and pressure from Morsi and Islamists, Carney was more cautious when asked about the expected Obama-Morsi meeting.
“In terms of any foreign leader visits or meetings that the President may have, I know that he’ll have at least a couple of bilateral meetings when he’s at the United Nations General Assembly, but I don’t have any meetings to read out with President Morsi,” Carney said.
Three days after the Sept. 11 Islamist attacks in Cairo and Libya, Carney denied any meeting plans.
“The President has no bilateral meetings scheduled at this time while he’s in New York,” he said.
That denial came three days Morsi allowed an Islamist mob to break into the U.S. embassy grounds in Cairo, burn the U.S. flag and raise an Islamist flag on Sept. 11. “We took our time” responding to the Sept. 11 attack in Cairo, Morsi told The New York Times.
On Sept. 13, Obama suddenly described Egypt as neither an ally nor an enemy, marking a sharp breakdown in relations after 33 years of U.S.-Egyptian-Israeli cooperation.
The Cairo attack took place the same day that a jihadi group killed four U.S. officials — including an ambassador– at the unfortified and poorly-guarded U.S. consulate in next-door Libya.
Obama and his deputies initially blamed the Sept. 11 attacks on a “natural” Arab reaction to an anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube by a California producer.
That claim allowed them to deny that empowered Islamist groups launched the attacks because of their Islamist, anti-Western beliefs, and has minimized the established media’s attention to the breakdown of Obama’s Middle East policy.
Over the last week, Morsi and his deputies have used Obama’s focus on the video to portray themselves to Egyptians as determined defenders of Islam.
For example, Morsi’s prime minister Hisham Qandil said Sept. 15 that he expected changes in U.S. law and media practice following the release of a 14-minute anti-Islam YouTube video and a week of ongoing unrest in the Middle East.
The United States should “take the necessary measures to ensure insulting billions of people – one and a half billion people – and their beliefs does not happen, and people pay for what they do, and at the same time make sure that the reflections of the true Egyptian and Muslims is well [represented] in Western media,” Qandil said, according to the the English-language site of Egypt’s main newspaper, Al Ahram.
And Qandil’s statement also hinted at more violence if the Islamists’ demands were not met.
“I think we need to work out something around this because we cannot wait and see this happen again,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)