Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

No one can doubt or question that BP needs to be held responsible for the disaster in the Gulf.  However, President Obama’s order to create a commission to investigate when it is chuck full of environmentalists will offer little to no answers.  The Obama administration has stacked the game against American oil companies in an unfair game of poker.  Like previous commissions, the “BP commission” has a preconceved finding.

Here is a list to take you into the twisted world of BP.

  1. Journalists are threatened with a felony and a fine if they video or report on the clean up.
  2. BP clean up workers who were made sick were told not to go to hospitals.  Rather, they should go to BP’s hospital.
  3. With Obama creating his “commission”, clean up taking a long time, locals not able to help with the clean up,; people wonder if the mess was a false-flag.  A means to an end for bigger government to step in.
  4. Ron Paul has said that he doesn’t trust Obama/BP/and the $20 billion dollars.
  5. Corexit is a chemical that shrimpers and clean up workers have exposed to.

Spin it anyway you want, but Obama/BP aren’t telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

A secure border is vital to preserving a nations future, not only for national security, but also soveriegnty.  When the fourteen year Mexican border jumper was shot and killed, Attorney General Eric Holder called it “regrettable”.  But when U.S. border patrol agent Luis Aguilar is killed, nothing is said.

Lord, please don’t let this guy get reelected!

Amid crises, Obama declares war – On Arizona

Byron York
Washington Examiner
Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there’s the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president’s agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer’s call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona’s junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that’s getting uglier by the day.

First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department’s intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. “It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us,” Brewer told Fox News’ Greta van Susteren last week, “they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens … of another nation.”

But they didn’t.

“There certainly seems to be an underlying disrespect for the state of Arizona,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Kobach points out that during the Bush years, several states openly flouted federal immigration law on issues like sanctuary cities and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Respecting the doctrines of comity and federalism, the Bush administration didn’t sue. Now, when Arizona passes a measure that is fully consistent with federal law, the Obama administration, says Kobach, “goes sprinting to the courthouse door.”

Then there is the matter of the White House’s assistance, or nonassistance, in Arizona’s border-security efforts. On June 3, the president, under criticism for refusing to meet or even talk to Brewer, reluctantly granted her an audience in the Oval Office. After the meeting, Brewer told reporters Obama pledged that administration officials would come to Arizona within two weeks with details of plans to secure the border.

June 17 marked two weeks, and there were no administration officials and no plans. There still aren’t. “What a disappointment,” Brewer told van Susteren. “You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing.”

And now, there’s the Kyl controversy. On June 18, Kyl told a town meeting in North Phoenix that Obama personally told him the administration will not secure the U.S.-Mexico border because doing so would make it politically difficult to pass comprehensive immigration reform. “I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us,” Kyl said. “Here’s what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

“In other words,” Kyl continued, “they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.”

After Kyl’s statement went viral on the Internet, the White House issued a sharp denial. “The president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it,” communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. “There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”

Kyl is not backing down. “What I said occurred, did occur,” he told an Arizona radio station. “Some spokesman down at the White House said no, that isn’t what happened at all, and then proceeded to say we need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. That is their position, and all I was doing was explaining why, from a conversation with the president, why it appears that that’s their position.”

Even if it didn’t have so many other fights on its hands, it would be unusual for an administration to align itself against an American state. But that’s precisely what has happened. Soon it will be up to the courts and voters to decide whether Obama’s campaign against Arizona will succeed or fail.

Senator Joseph Lieberman just cannot help his big government leanings, or even here.  It almost compulsory for him.  With him being a strong advocate of internet control for a long time, he has now introduced legislation to control the internet in emergency situations.  As stated below, this bill has every potential to silence free speech.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.

Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the United States launched the world’s largest manhunt.  Absence of bin Laden’s live body or corpse has prompted conspiracy theories that the FBI’s most notorious fugitive is dead.  During the Bush years bin Laden would occasionally make a cameo appearance, most notably the one just days before the 2004 presidential election.

Bruce Riedel, an Obama Afghanistan/Pakistan official has seen the intel on bin Laden and says the leads have “frozen over”. 

“We don’t have a clue where he is,” he says.  But now the Obama administration says that bin Laden will not be “captured alive”.  Does something smell fishy here?  Along with the story here are some informative reading.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8444069.stm

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared terrorists to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure “we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden” not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

Holder sternly rejected criticism from GOP members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, who contend it is too dangerous to put terror suspects on trial in federal civilian courts as Holder has proposed.

The attorney general said it infuriates him to hear conservative critics complain that terrorists would get too many rights in the court system.

Terrorists in court “have the same rights that Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer,” the attorney general said. “It doesn’t mean that they’re going to be coddled, it doesn’t mean that they’re going to be treated with kid gloves.”

The comparison to convicted killer Manson angered Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who said it showed the Obama administration doesn’t understand the American public’s desire to treat terrorists as wartime enemies, not criminal defendants.

“My constituents and I just have a deep-seated and profound philosophical difference with the Obama administration,” Culberson said.

Holder, his voice rising, charged that Culberson’s arguments ignored basic facts about the law and the fight against terrorists.

“Let’s deal with reality,” Holder said. “The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom.”

Pressed further on that point, Holder said: “The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can’t be captured by us.”

Much of the hearing centered around the Obama administration’s stalled plan to put the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on trial. Last year, Holder announced the trial would take place in federal civilian court in New York City, not far from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

In the face of resistance from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other local politicians, that plan was shelved and the White House is now considering putting KSM and four alleged co-conspirators into a military commission trial.

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., bemoaned what he called a “cowardly” desire to avoid a civilian terror trial in a major city.

If a terrorist had killed thousands of Philadelphians, Fattah said, “we would expect him to come to Philadelphia” to face trial “if he would live long enough.”

“It doesn’t befit a great nation to hesitate or equivocate on the question of following our own laws,” he said.

In other testimony:

• Holder defended the interrogation of the suspect in the attempted Christmas bombing of an airliner at it approached Detroit. He said the questioning produced very valuable intelligence and disputed the notion that reading the suspect his Miranda rights prevented further intelligence-gathering. The suspect resumed cooperating later, officials have said.

Holder’s remarks led to an angry exchange with Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who claimed “there was an opportunity that was missed and we will never get it back again.”

Holder shot back: “That is simply not true.”

• The attorney general also acknowledged an ongoing probe into whether defense teams representing Guantanamo Bay detainees may have wrongly obtained photographs of CIA interrogators — pictures that could, some fear, endanger those interrogators.

• Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., offered support for Holder’s now-dormant plan to try the Sept. 11 suspects in New York. But Serrano himself acknowledged he was the only elected New York official who still supported the idea.

“I thought it was very dramatic to say I’m not afraid of you'” to the terrorists, Serrano said.

The Obama administration is reveiwing how the intelligence appuratus failed to stop al-Qaeda from getting on board a U.S. airliner.  As we all know, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Detroit-bound aircraft.  In the wake of confusion and government officials shaking their heads, Obama’s homeland security team are pieceing together how Abdulmutallab was able to board a U.S. airliner.  Obama said:

We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaida, and that this group — al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula — trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.

The parralels of this attack and 9/11 are just too close.  According to officials Abdulmutallab’s father warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that he had drifted into al-Qaeda extremism, but security measures failed.  In case you need reminding, here are security measures that failed us on 9/11:

  1. How is it that in 2000 the Air Force intercepted nearly seventy aircraft, but on one day in September of 2001 four planes would be allowed to go off the radar map and no planes would be scrambled to intercept.
  2. For years government officials were getting word that an attack on U.S. soil was imminent and immediate action was needed.
  3. In August of 2001 the Bush administration received word that bin Laden planned to attack the U.S.  Nothing was followed up on and Bush fought the release of this document.
  4. Days later Bush administration officials said “we could never imagine someone taking our own planes and flying them into our buildings”.  It would later be reported by the mainstream media that the government had thougt of this.  In fact, they had practiced wargames simulating the very circumstances that happened on 9/11.
  5. Why is it that the military under NORAD on 9/11 were under “9/11 style wargames”?
  6. Why is that out of the dozens of video tape of the Pentagon impact only four have been released, and none of them show an American Airlines 757 impacting?
  7. Why wasn’t any Boeing 757 jet engines recovered from the wreckage?
  8. Why did it take nearly two years for the 9/11 Commission to convene to investigate the criminal act when a majority of material evidence had been destroyed?
  9. Why were Bush and Cheney questioned in secret?
  10. During the Senate inquiries witnesses were pulled by the Department of Defense or were told what to testify to.

These are just a handful of questions that the average American could ask but will never see any answers to.  Because the government can hold materials secret that are of “national security interest” at will, we are kept in the dark.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100102/ap_on_re_us/us_airline_attack_obama

President Obama has promised change.  But what we have gotten are a continuation of the Bush policies.  An escalation of a foreign policy in Afghanistan with no end in sight, and economic plans that in the long run will hurt this country.  Obama is continuing the Bush policies of suppressing rights.

As of December 1, 2009 Gallup ran a poll showing 55% disapprove of the Obama administration’s plans for Afghanistan.  While the commanding general in Afghanistan Stanley McChrystal has advised 40,000 troop increases, President Obama plans to send a little less.  Obama’s approval among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have taken a dive.

Once again, Obama said Change we can believe in and Yes we can.  But what he really meant was change that they the politicians can believe in, and yes they can do what they want.  The discontent of the American people with Obama will make it difficult for him to win 2012.  However, despite their disagreements the Dem’s will pull together to keep the White House.

While Americans disprove of Congress in various ways, as of December 17, 2009 Congress had a flat 25% approval rating.  Obviously the effects of the banker bailout, foreign policy, and overall distrust of the Congress is lingering.  The victory of the Democrats in 2008 maybe short-lived according to Gallup.  As of December 14, 2009 Dem’s regained a 48% to 45% lead over the Republicans, up from a 44% to 48% deficit a month ago.

As early as November 30, 2009, when asked how they would recommend their member of Congress to vote on health care 49% of Americans said against.  It is clear that the career politician is ignoring the obvious voice of the people.  But with no term limits, corporate and lobbies sponsorship, and limitations on third party participation, the chances of us seeing different faces in Congress is slim to none.

My source:      http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

This is courtesy of www.campaignforliberty.com and the information and numbers described in here will shock you.  It’s no wonder that our country is going broke.

By Jo Comerford

$57,077.60. That’s what we’re paying per minute. Keep that in mind — just for a minute or so.

After all, the surge is already on. By the end of December, the first 1,500 U.S. troops will have landed in Afghanistan, a nation roughly the size of Texas, ranked by the United Nations as second worst in the world in terms of human development.

Women and men from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, will be among the first to head out. It takes an estimated $1 million to send each of them surging into Afghanistan for one year. So a 30,000-person surge will be at least $30 billion, which brings us to that $57,077.60.  That’s how much it will cost you, the taxpayer, for one minute of that surge.

By the way, add up the yearly salary of a Marine from Camp Lejeune with four years of service, throw in his or her housing allowance, additional pay for dependents, and bonus pay for hazardous duty, imminent danger, and family separation, and you’ll still be many thousands of dollars short of that single minute’s sum.

But perhaps this isn’t a time to quibble. After all, a job is a job, especially in the United States, which has lost seven million jobs since December 2007, while reporting record-high numbers of people seeking assistance to feed themselves and/or their families. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 36 million Americans, including one out of every four children, are currently on food stamps.

On the other hand, given the woeful inadequacy of that “safety net,” we might have chosen to direct the $30 billion in surge expenditures toward raising the average individual monthly Food Stamp allotment by $70 for the next year; that’s roughly an additional trip to the grocery store, every month, for 36 million people. Alternatively, we could have dedicated that $30 billion to job creation. According to a recent report issued by the Political Economy Research Institute, that sum could generate a whopping 537,810 construction jobs, 541,080 positions in healthcare, fund 742,740 teachers or employ 831,390 mass transit workers.

For purposes of comparison, $30 billion — remember, just the Pentagon-estimated cost of a 30,000-person troop surge — is equal to 80% of the total U.S. 2010 budget for international affairs, which includes monies for development and humanitarian assistance. On the domestic front, $30 billion could double the funding (at 2010 levels) for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Or think of the surge this way: if the United States decided to send just 29,900 extra soldiers to Afghanistan, 100 short of the present official total, it could double the amount of money — $100 million — it has allocated to assist refugees and returnees from Afghanistan through the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.

Leaving aside the fact that the United States already accounts for 45% of total global military spending, the $30 billion surge cost alone would place us in the top-ten for global military spending, sandwiched between Italy and Saudi Arabia. Spent instead on “soft security” measures within Afghanistan, $30 billion could easily build, furnish and equip enough schools for the entire nation.

Continuing this nod to the absurd for just one more moment, if you received a silver dollar every second, it would take you 960 years to haul in that $30 billion. Not that anyone could hold so much money. Together, the coins would weigh nearly 120,000 tons, or more than the poundage of 21,000 Asian elephants, an aircraft carrier, or the Washington Monument. Converted to dollar bills and laid end-to-end, $30 billion would reach 2.9 million miles or 120 times around the Earth.

One more thing, that $30 billion isn’t even the real cost of Obama’s surge. It’s just a minimum, through-the-basement estimate. If you were to throw in all the bases being built, private contractors hired, extra civilians sent in, and the staggering costs of training a larger Afghan army and police force (a key goal of the surge), the figure would surely be startlingly higher. In fact, total Afghanistan War spending for 2010 is now expected to exceed $102.9 billion, doubling last year’s Afghan spending. Thought of another way, it breaks down to $12 million per hour in taxpayer dollars for one year. That’s equal to total annual U.S. spending on all veteran’s benefits, from hospital stays to education.

In Afghan terms, our upcoming single year of war costs represents nearly five times that country’s gross domestic product or $3,623.70 for every Afghan woman, man, and child. Given that the average annual salary for an Afghan soldier is $2,880 and many Afghans seek employment in the military purely out of economic desperation, this might be a wise investment — especially since the Taliban is able to pay considerably more for its new recruits. In fact, recent increases in much-needed Afghan recruits appear to correlate with the promise of a pay raise.  

All of this is, of course, so much fantasy, since we know just where that $30-plus billion will be going.  In 2010, total Afghanistan War spending since November 2001 will exceed $325 billion, which equals the combined annual military spending of Great Britain, China, France, Japan, Germany, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.  If we had never launched an invasion of Afghanistan or stayed on fighting all these years, those war costs, evenly distributed in this country, would have meant a $2,298.80 dividend per U.S. taxpayer.

Even as we calculate the annual cost of war, the tens of thousands of Asian elephants in the room are all pointing to $1 trillion in total war costs for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The current escalation in Afghanistan coincides with that rapidly-approaching milestone. In fact, thanks to Peter Baker’s recent New York Times report on the presidential deliberations that led to the surge announcement, we know that the trillion-dollar number for both wars may be a gross underestimate. The Office of Management and Budget sent President Obama a memo, Baker tells us, suggesting that adding General McChrystal’s surge to ongoing war costs, over the next 10 years, could mean — forget Iraq — a trillion dollar Afghan War.

At just under one-third of the 2010 U.S. federal budget, $1 trillion essentially defies per-hour-per-soldier calculations. It dwarfs all other nations’ military spending, let alone their spending on war. It makes a mockery of food stamps and schools. To make sense of this cost, we need to leave civilian life behind entirely and turn to another war. We have to reach back to the Vietnam War, which in today’s dollars cost $709.9 billion — or $300 billion less than the total cost of the two wars we’re still fighting, with no end in sight, or even $300 billion less than the long war we may yet fight in Afghanistan.