PENTAGON OFFICIAL: THE PRESIDENT IS LYING TO AMERICA – ABOUT US, AND ABOUT ISIS

October 2nd, 2014

 

- The Daily Caller – http://dailycaller.com -

Pentagon Official: The President Is Lying To America — About Us, And About ISIS

Posted By Joseph Miller On  09/30/2014

Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

President Barack Obama has taken a lot of flak since his Sunday night “60 Minutes” interview, in which he blamed the intelligence community for his failure to tackle the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. And that is right and proper. Because not only was his excuse of blaming us a lie, but when questioned on his lie, White House press secretary Josh Earnest doubled down with a whole new lie — both of which are easily, publicly proven false.

On Sunday, Obama said the intelligence community had underestimated the rise of ISIS, saying in an interview with CBS, “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”

But we know that isn’t true, as nearly a dozen administration officials have testified to the threat posed by ISIS publicly over the last year.

The fact that the president chose to use the word “they” instead of “we” immediately drew condemnation from friend and foe alike, who saw it as the president’s attempt to pass the buck. (RELATED: Obama Has Spent More Time Playing Golf Than In Intel Briefings)

To mitigate the fallout, Earnest’s office issued a statement stating that, “…A lot of that [decision-making] was predicated on the will of the Iraqi security forces to fight for their country.”

But this was also not true.

In 2010, General Lloyd Austin, then-commander of United State Forces in Iraq, directly informed the president that over 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to maintain the gains made by U.S. forces against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and to mentor the fledgling Iraqi security forces– because he knew they were not ready to go out on their own. (MILLER: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States) Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

OBAMA NEEDS TO CALL BUSH BY BRET STEPHENS

September 30th, 2014

 

WALL STREET JOURNAL
Global View

Obama Needs to Call Bush

Talk to your predecessor. It will show contrition, humility and real bipartisanship—things you could use to salvage your presidency.

Two presidents at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, April 25, 2013.
Two presidents at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, April 25, 2013. AFP/Getty Images
By

Bret Stephens

Sept. 29, 2014

Bill Clinton made news earlier this month when he revealed, at a joint appearance with George W. Bush, that the 43rd president used to call him twice a year during his troubled second term “just to talk.”

“We talked about everything in the right world,” Mr. Clinton said of the conversations, which lasted anywhere between 30 and 45 minutes. “He asked my opinion, half the time he disagreed with it. But I felt good about that, I thought that was a really healthy thing.”

Maybe President Obama also calls Mr. Bush every now and then, just to talk, and one day we’ll find out about it. But I suspect not. No president has so completely built his administration with a view toward doing—and being—the opposite of his predecessor. Long private talks wouldn’t just be out of character for this president. They’d be awkward.

But having a long conversation with Mr. Bush is what Mr. Obama needs to do if he means to start salvaging his failing presidency. It would be an act of contrition: for six years of vulgar ridicule and sophomoric condescension. Also, humility: for finally understanding that the intel is often wrong (and that doesn’t make you a “liar”), that the choices in war are never clear or simple, that the allies aren’t always with you, and that evil succumbs only to force.

And it would be an act of bipartisanship: not the fake kind to which the president pays occasional lip service, but the kind that knows there is no party monopoly on wisdom, and that there is no democracy without compromise, and that there can be no compromise when your opponents sense you hold them in contempt.

“Mr. President,” Mr. Obama could begin, with an emphasis on formality, “I’d like to borrow that portrait you did of Vladimir Putin so I can hang it in my private study. I need to be able to stare my enemy in the face every day.”

That should break the ice. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

PHOTOS – MICHAEL REAGAN, GUEST SPEAKER AT WAKE COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN’S CLUB , NC, FUNDRAISER

September 30th, 2014

 

The Wake County Republican Women’s Club presented a Politics, Pasta and Pink Slips fundraiser dinner with Michael Reagan as guest speaker at the North Ridge Country Club in Raleigh, North Carolina, on September 28, 2014.    A packed ballroom enthusiastically greeted Mr. Reagan who spoke of his  many warm and personal remembrances of his father, President Ronald Reagan .  
In speaking of his father,  Michael  Reagan recommended the viewing of Ronald Reagan’s famous speech, A Time For Choosing, from 1964 as it is very timely and this is the 50th anniversary of the speech.   Please click on the link       
The following photos are from the event.

Michael Reagan

Michael Reagan at a VIP Reception

Lucy Holding, wife of Congressman George Holding, District 13 and
Justice Paul M Newby, North Carolina State Supreme Court

From the left: Connie Johnson and Doris May

From the left: Rebecca Bass, Felice Pete, former president of the Wake County Republican Women’s Club and Casey Lovas

Linda Arnold, North Carolina Federation Republican Women VP Capital Region and Matt Arnold, North Carolina GOP Chairman, District 4

Pat and DIck Hilliard

 

From the left: Zan Bunn, President of the North Carolina Federation of Republican Women and Nancy Clark, Conservative Women’s Forum

From the left: Taiji Kimball of Durham and Herman Joubert, Republican candidate for North Carolina Senate

Sidney Troidl of Raleigh

From the left: Jeane Coffer and Nancy Vassey

 


  • Share/Bookmark

CRONY CAPITALISM HAS DEEP ROOTS

September 25th, 2014

 

Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)

 


Crony Capitalism Has Deep Roots

The Ex-Im Bank and the trouble with the Republican party.

Jay Cost

September 22, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 02

Well, this was predictable. House Republicans last week acceded to an extension of the Export-Import Bank for at least the next nine months. The Export-Import Bank is far from the worst example of government-business cronyism. I just completed a history of American political corruption and actually had to leave Ex-Im on the cutting room floor. Its cronies are pikers compared with the corporate moguls that take advantage of tax preferences like the G.E. and Apple loopholes. They also cannot hold a candle to the American Medical Association, which is basically free to write the reimbursement rates for Medicare Part B. And nothing compares to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1991-2008. The two mortgage giants kept the entire D.C. political class bent over a barrel for almost 20 years as its top executives reaped enormous bonuses while putting the broader economy at risk.

What makes Ex-Im noteworthy is how narrow its coalition of beneficiaries is. With most modern corruption, you see some sort of logroll. The farm bill, for instance, ensnares not only dozens of commodity groups but also a vast array of interests that have seemingly little to do with agriculture. Similarly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac survived for so long by roping in realtors, primary mortgage lenders, and home builders, all of whom benefited from the same sorts of policies.

Ex-Im’s list of beneficiaries basically starts and ends with Boeing. This should in theory make it more vulnerable. Our perverse system of interest group pluralism tends to favor policies that rally multiple groups. Ex-Im does not really do that. Further, its economic justifications are slender indeed. On top of that, all congressional Republicans have to do is nothing; absent action by Congress renewing the bank, it disappears.

Ex-Im is the lowest of low-hanging fruit in the sprawling tree of American political corruption. And yet House Republicans cannot seem to pluck it.

There is a lesson in this—an unhappy one, but one that must nevertheless be learned if conservative reformers hope to win: The Republican party is part of this problem, and always has been. Today, the foundation of the party’s electoral coalition is the conservative movement, but that’s a historical novelty. The forebears of today’s conservatives used to be spread between the two parties (with Southerners in the Democratic party and small-town Midwesterners in the GOP). The Republican party predates the conservative movement, and in important respects simply tacked on its voters to an extant set of interests. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

HOW TO TRANSITION FROM OBAMACARE TO REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM

September 25th, 2014

 

Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)

Getting There

How to transition from Obamacare to real health care reform

James C. Capretta and Yuval Levin

September 22, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 02

Obamacare—or at least the version of it that the president and his advisers currently think they can get away with putting into place—has been upending arrangements and reshuffling the deck in the health system since the beginning of the year. That’s when the new insurance rules, subsidies, and optional state Medicaid expansions went into effect. The law’s defenders say the changes that have been set in motion are irreversible, in large part because several million people are now covered by insurance plans sold through the exchanges, and a few million more are enrolled in Medicaid as a result of Obamacare. President Obama has stated repeatedly that these developments should effectively shut the door on further debate over the matter.

Of course, the president does not get to decide when public debates begin or end, and the public seems to be in no mood to declare the Obamacare case closed. Polling has consistently shown that more Americans oppose the law than support it, and that the opposition is far more intense than the support. The law is built on a foundation of dramatically expanded government power over the nation’s health system, which strikes many voters as a dangerous step toward more bureaucracy, less choice, higher costs, and lower quality care. The beginning of the law’s implementation does not appear to have eased these fears, and in some cases has exacerbated them.

But opponents of Obamacare must also reckon with the reality that the goal of repealing the law and replacing it with real, market-based health reform to bring down costs and enable more people to get covered is no longer aimed at a system that exists only in theory. When President Obama won reelection in 2012, it became inevitable that some version of the law would get implemented starting this year. And it was also a pretty good bet that, despite the law’s internal contradictions and problems, it would not, as some had surmised, collapse on the launch pad. Massive federal spending authority can prop up many a teetering edifice. The surprise is not that some 6 million people or so eligible for nearly free insurance under Obamacare took advantage of the offer; the surprise is that many millions more who were eligible declined to take it.

Some of the law’s opponents are reacting to these developments with something close to resignation. One prominent proposal would leave much of Obamacare’s government-centric architecture in place on the theory that it can be reformed and made to serve genuine market-oriented purposes. The law’s state and federal “exchanges,” which are the focal points of Obamacare’s expanded federal control over the health system, would be enlarged under this plan with millions of new enrollees from Medicaid. Future Medicare beneficiaries would also be forced to get their coverage through this mechanism.

It is true that exchanges are not, by definition, anti-market. Indeed, in concept, they could facilitate transparency and thus modestly improve consumer choice. But the Obamacare exchanges were built to assert increasing federal regulatory control over the nation’s health system. It is very rare for deregulation efforts to remove all such authority from an agency of government. Even if a deregulation effort partially succeeds in the short run, over the long run, federal regulatory agencies gain power by cleverly creating vested interests in the protection and expansion of that power. It is a very risky bet to place the future of American health care at the mercy of a new and improved system of Obamacare exchanges.

And there is no need to do so. The reality of Obamacare implementation in 2014 does not mean the law is no longer replaceable with something better. It still can be displaced by an appealing conservative alternative if a newly elected president chooses to make repeal and replace a top priority in 2017. But plans to replace Obamacare must now take into account the changes that the law has brought about this year, and stands to deliver over the next few years. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

VIDEO – A FORMER MUSLIM’S MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA RE ISLAM

September 23rd, 2014

VIDEO – A FORMER MUSLIM’S MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA REGARDING ISLAM

  • Share/Bookmark

3 VIDEOS – KRAUTHAMMER, K T MCFARLAND AND COL ALLEN WEST ON AIR STRIKES

September 23rd, 2014

 

3 VIDEOS – KRAUTHAMMER, K T MCFARLAND AND COL. ALLEN WEST – ANALYZE SYRIAN AIR STRIKES  – FOX NEWS
  • Share/Bookmark

VIDEO – BILL WHITTLE – BUSH-LITE (Barack Obama)

September 22nd, 2014

  • Share/Bookmark

THE HILLARY LETTERS TO SAUL ALINSKY

September 22nd, 2014

 

 

- Washington Free Beacon – http://freebeacon.com -

 

The Hillary Letters

Posted By Alana Goodman On September 21, 2014

 

NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.

Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.

Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.

The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.

A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.

On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”

“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.

However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

TWO VIDEOS – BERNARD LEWIS AND FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JAMES WOOLSEY ON OIL MONEY AND SAUDI ARABIA’S STRANGLEHOLD OVER GLOBAL AFFAIRS

September 22nd, 2014

 

 
TWO VERY IMPORTANT VIDEOS  – BERNARD LEWIS – HISTORIAN AND MIDDLE EAST EXPERT AND FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JAMES WOOLSEY  -  OIL MONEY AND SAUDI ARABIA’S STRANGLEHOLD OVER GLOBAL AFFAIRS

 

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories
Search