Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Ludicrous the government of Mr. Assad would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels. - Russian President Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria, but also said Russia “doesn’t exclude” supporting a UN resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved Damascus used poison gas on its own people.
Mr. Putin said it was “ludicrous” the government of Mr. Assad — a staunch ally of Russia — would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.
AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko
AP Photo/Alexander ZemlianichenkoRussian President Vladimir Putin.
“From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces — the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off — that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force,” he said.
The Russian president said the U.S. had failed to make its case against Syria through the proper channels.
“If there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the UN Security Council,” said Mr. Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB.
“And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn’t be based on some rumours and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”

Barack Obama warned Wednesday that the credibility of the international community was on the line over the Syria crisis as he said the world had to stop paying “lip service” to its obligations on chemical weapons.
Setting out the rationale for military action, Mr. Obama said it was not him but the world that had drawn a “red line” against chemical weapons use.
Asked about his past comments, Mr. Obama said that line had already been drawn by a chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world.
My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line
“That wasn’t something I made up,” he said, speaking in Sweden before he attends a Group of 20 economic summit in Russia Thursday.
“I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line,” said Mr. Obama. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”
He pointed out the governments of 98% of the world’s population had passed a treaty forbidding the use of chemical weapons.
“Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty,” he said.








Thursday, August 1, 2013

White House calls Benghazi 'phony' scandal, as lawmakers seek answers on probe

WHITE HOUSE ASSURES PUBLIC THAT BENGHAZI WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A ‘PHONY SCANDAL’

July 31, 2013
BenghaziTop_20130731_211017


























The White House said bluntly Wednesday that it considers the controversy over the Benghazi attack to be among the so-called “phony scandals” that President Obama has been complaining about in recent speeches — even as new questions were being raised about the lack of progress in the investigation.  Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked at the daily briefing about Obama’s repeated claim — which he asserted most recently during a speech in Tennessee on Tuesday — that Washington is getting distracted by phony scandals. Asked what the president was referring to, Carney listed the scandals over the IRS targeting of conservative groups and over Benghazi. 

 ”What we’ve seen, as time has passed and more facts have become known, whether it’s about the attacks in Benghazi and the talking points or revelations about conduct at the IRS, that attempts to turn this into a scandal have failed,” Carney said. More:  

White House calls Benghazi 'phony' scandal, as lawmakers seek answers on probe | Fox News:
'via Blog this'

Sunday, January 20, 2013

“Prophecy Fulfilled.” Inauguration Poster Likens Obama to Jesus


Inauguration Poster Likens Obama to Jesus


By Todd Starnes
Street vendors and souvenir stores across Washington, D.C. are selling posters depicting President Obama as Jesus Christ — and one national news publication called him the “Second Coming.”

The poster, which does not have the official endorsement of the White House,  features an image of the president in prayer with the headline, “Prophecy Fulfilled.”
“Barak is of Hebrew origin and its meaning is ‘flash of lightning,” the poster notes, referencing a passage in in the Old Testament book of Judges.
Hussein, they allege, is a Biblical word meaning “good and handsome.”
“So you see, Barak was destined to be a good and handsome man that would rise like a flash of lightning to win victory in a battle against overwhelming odds,” the poster read.
This week’s cover of Newsweek depicts President Obama as the “Second Coming” – a biblical reference to the return of Christ.
It’s not the first time that Obama has been deified by his supporters.
Actor Jamie Foxx called President Obama “our Lord and Savior” during a recent television appearance.
“It’s like church over here,” Foxx told the audience. “First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.”
“Barack Obama,” he shouted as the audience cheered.
Florida A&M professor Barbara Thompson published a book titled “The Gospel According to Apostle Barack.” The book likens Obama to Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, Jr.hussein
“I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor,” she wrote in an excerpt published by The Daily Caller. “Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side.”
A controversial painting of President Obama, posed as Jesus Christ on the cross, was part of an art exhibit at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston.
Photo by Art & Response
The Michael D’Antuono painting is called “The Truth” — and features the president with his arms stretched out — wearing a crown of thorns.
The original debut of the painting four years ago was cancelled due to public outrage,Design & Trend reported.
At the time D’Antuono told Air America that he didn’t mean to “disrespect people’s religion. It’s meant as a political piece.”
And at the Democratic National Convention street vendors were selling an array of products including a prayer garment embroidered with President Obama’s name — along with a calendar that declared him “heaven sent.”
The entry also included a photograph of Obama along with a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” the entry read — referencing John 3:16.
The month of November includes an image of individuals with their hands on Obama’s back — with the words “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.”

Friday, December 21, 2012

TIME Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938


Monday, Jan. 02, 1939

Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938


Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler.
Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth— or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world. 

All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.
Most other world figures of 1938 faded in importance as the year drew to a close. Prime Minister Chamberlain's "peace with honor'' seemed more than ever to have achieved neither. An increasing number of Britons ridiculed his appease-the-dictators policy, believed that nothing save abject surrender could satisfy the dictators' ambitions.
Among many Frenchmen there rose a feeling that Premier Daladier, by a few strokes of the pen at Munich, had turned France into a second-rate power. Aping Mussolini in his gestures and copying triumphant Hitler's shouting complex, the once liberal Daladier at year's end was reduced to using parliamentary tricks to keep his job. 
During 1938 Dictator Mussolini was only a decidedly junior partner in the firm of Hitler & Mussolini, Inc. His noisy agitation to get Corsica and Tunis from France was rated as a weak bluff whose immediate objectives were no more than cheaper tolls for Italian ships in the Suez Canal and control of the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railroad.
Gone from the international scene was Eduard Benes, for 20 years Europe's "Smartest Little Statesman." Last President of free Czechoslovakia, he was now a sick exile from the country he helped found. Pious Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek, Man of 1937, was forced to retreat to a "New" West China, where he faced the possibility of becoming only a respectable figurehead in an enveloping Communist movement. If Francisco Franco had won the Spanish Civil War after his great spring drive, he might well have been Man-of-the-Year timber. But victory still eluded the Generalissimo and war weariness and disaffection on the Rightist side made his future precarious.

On the American scene, 1938 was no one man's year. Certainly it was not Franklin Roosevelt's: his Purge was beaten and his party lost much of its bulge in the Congress. Secretary Hull will remember Good Neighborly 1938 as the year he crowned his trade treaty efforts with the British agreement, but history will not specially identify Mr. Hull with 1938. At year's end in Lima, his plan of Continental Solidarity for the two Americas had a few of its teeth pulled (see p. 10).
But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today. 

His shadow fell far beyond Germany's frontiers. Small, neighboring States (Denmark, Norway, Czecho-Slovakia, Lithuania, the Balkans, Luxembourg, The Netherlands) feared to offend him. In France Nazi pressure was in part responsible for some of the post-Munich anti-democratic decrees. Fascism had intervened openly in Spain, had fostered a revolt in Brazil, was covertly aiding revolutionary movements in Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania. In Finland a foreign minister had to resign under Nazi pressure. Throughout eastern Europe after Munich the trend was toward less freedom, more dictatorship. In the U. S. alone did democracy feel itself strong enough at year's end to give Hitler his come-uppance (see p. 5).
The Fascintern, with Hitler in the driver's seat, with Mussolini, Franco and the Japanese military cabal riding behind, emerged in 1938 as an international, revolutionary movement. Rant as he might against the machinations of international Communism and international Jewry, or rave as he would that he was just a Pan-German trying to get all the Germans back in one nation, Führer Hitler had himself become the world's No. 1 International Revolutionist—so much so that if the oft-predicted struggle between Fascism and Communism now takes place it will be only because two revolutionist dictators. Hitler and Stalin, are too big to let each other live in the same world. 

But Führer Hitler does not regard himself as a revolutionary; he has become so only by force of circumstances. Fascism has discovered that freedom—of press, speech, assembly—is a potential danger to its own security. In Fascist phraseology democracy is often coupled with Communism. The Fascist battle against freedom is often carried forward under the false slogan of "Down with Communism!" One of the chief German complaints against democratic Czechoslovakia last summer was that it was an "outpost of Communism."
A generation ago western civilization had apparently outgrown the major evils of barbarism except for war between nations. The Russian Communist Revolution promoted the evil of class war. Hitler topped it by another, race war. Fascism and Communism both resurrected religious war. These multiple forms of barbarism gave shape in 1938 to an issue over which men may again, perhaps soon, shed blood: the issue of civilized liberty v. barbaric authoritarianism.

Lesser men of the year seemed small indeed beside the Führer. Undoubted Crook of the Year was the late Frank Donald Coster (né Musica), with Richard Whitney, now in Sing Sing Prison, as runner-up. Sportsman of the Year was Tennist Donald Budge, champion of the U. S., England, France, Australia. Aviator of the Year was 33-year-old Howard Robard Hughes, diffident millionaire, who flew a sober, precise, foolproof course 14,716 miles round the top of the world in three days, 19 hours, eight minutes.
Radio's Man of the Year was youthful Orson Welles who, in his famous The War of the Worlds broadcast, scared fewer people than Hitler, but more than had ever been frightened by radio before, demonstrating that radio can be a tremendous force in whipping up mass emotion. Playwright of the Year was Thornton Wilder, previously a precious litterateur, whose first play on Broadway, Our Town, was not only ingenious and moving, but a big hit. To Gabriel Pascal, producer of Pygmalion, first full-length picture based on the wordy dramas of George Bernard Shaw, went the title of Cineman of the Year for having discovered a rich mine of dramatic material when other famed producers had given up all hope of ever tapping it. Men of the Year, outstanding in comprehensive science, were three medical researchers who discovered that nicotinic acid was a cure for human pellagra: Drs. Tom Douglas Spies of Cincinnati General Hospital, Marion Arthur Blankenhorn of the University of Cincinnati, Clark Niel Cooper of Waterloo, Iowa. 
In religion, the two outstanding figures of 1938 were in sharp contrast save for their opposition to Adolf Hitler. One of them, Pope Pius XI, 81, spoke with "bitter sadness" of Italy's anti-Semitic laws, the harrying of Italian Catholic Action groups, the reception Mussolini gave Hitler last May, declared sadly: "We have offered our now old life for the peace and prosperity of peoples. We offer it anew." By spending most of the year in a concentration camp, Protestant Pastor Martin Niemoller gave courageous witness to his faith.
It was noteworthy that few of these other men of the year would have been free to achieve their accomplishments in Nazi Germany. The genius of free wills has been so stifled by the oppression of dictatorship that Germany's output of poetry, prose, music, philosophy, art has been meagre indeed.
The man most responsible for this world tragedy is a moody, brooding, unprepossessing, 49-year-old Austrian-born ascetic with a Charlie Chaplin mustache. The son of an Austrian petty customs official, Adolf Hitler was raised as a spoiled child by a doting mother. Consistently failing to pass even the most elementary studies, he grew up a half-educated young man, untrained for any trade or profession, seemingly doomed to failure. Brilliant, charming, cosmopolitan Vienna he learned to loathe for what he called its Semitism; more to his liking was homogeneous Munich, his real home after 1912. To this man of no trade and few interests the Great War was a welcome event which gave him some purpose in life. Corporal Hitler took part in 48 engagements, won the German Iron Cross (first class), was wounded once and gassed once, was in a hospital when the Armistice of November 11, 1918 was declared.

His political career began in 1919 when he became Member No. 7 of the midget German Labor Party. Discovering his powers of oratory, Hitler soon became the party's leader, changed its name to the National Socialist German Labor Party, wrote its antiSemitic, antidemocratic, authoritarian program. The party's first mass meeting took place in Munich in February 1920. The leader intended to participate in a monarchist attempt to seize power a month later; but for this abortive Putsch Führer Hitler arrived too late. An even less successful National Socialist attempt—the famed Munich Beer Hall Putsch of 1923—provided the party with dead martyrs, landed Herr Hitler in jail. His incarceration at Landsberg Fortress gave him time to write the first volume of Mein Kampf, now a "must" on every German bookshelf.*
Outlawed in many German districts, the National Socialist Party nevertheless climbed steadily in membership. Time-honored Tammany Hall methods of handing out many small favors were combined with rowdy terrorism and lurid, patriotic propaganda. The picture of a mystic, abstemious, charismatic Führer was assiduously cultivated.

Not until 1929 did National Socialism win its first absolute majority in a city election (at Coburg) and make its first significant showing in a provincial election (in Thuringia). But from 1928 on the party almost continually gained in electoral strength. In the Reichstag elections of 1928 it polled 809,000 votes. Two years later 6,401,016 Germans voted for National Socialist deputies, while in 1932 the vote was 13,732,779. While still short of a majority, the vote was nevertheless impressive proof of the power of the man and his movement.
The situation which gave rise to this demagogic, ignorant, desperate movement was inherent in the German Republic's birth and in the craving of large sections of the politically immature German people for strong, masterful leadership. Democracy in Germany was conceived in the womb of military defeat. It was the Republic which put its signature (unwillingly) to the humiliating Versailles Treaty, a brand of shame which it never lived down in German minds.
That the German people love uniforms, parades, military formations, and submit easily to authority is no secret. Führer Hitler's own hero is Frederick the Great. That admiration stems undoubtedly from Frederick's military prowess and autocratic rule rather than from Frederick's love of French culture and his hatred of Prussian boorishness. But unlike the polished Frederick, Führer Hitler, whose reading has always been very limited, invites few great minds to visit him, nor would Führer Hitler agree with Frederick's contention that he was "tired of ruling over slaves."*

In bad straits even in fair weather, the German Republic collapsed under the weight of the 1929-34 depression in which German unemployment soared to 7,000,000 above a nationwide wind drift of bankruptcies and failures. Called to power as Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933 by aged, senile President Paul von Hindenburg, Chancellor Hitler began to turn the Reich inside out. Unemployment was solved by: 1) a far-reaching program of public works; 2) an intense rearmament program, including a huge standing army; 3) enforced labor in the service of the State (the German Labor Corps); 4) putting political enemies and Jewish, Communist and Socialist jobholders in concentration camps.

What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to Germany in less than six years was applauded wildly and ecstatically by most Germans. He lifted the nation from post-War defeatism. Under the swastika Germany was unified. His was no ordinary dictatorship, but rather one of great energy and magnificent planning. The "socialist" part of National Socialism might be scoffed at by hard-&-fast Marxists, but the Nazi movement nevertheless had a mass basis. The 1,500 miles of magnificent highways built, schemes for cheap cars and simple workers' benefits, grandiose plans for rebuilding German cities made Germans burst with pride. Germans might eat many substitute foods or wear ersatz clothes but they did eat. What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to the German people in that time left civilized men and women aghast. Civil rights and liberties have disappeared. Opposition to the Nazi regime has become tantamount to suicide or worse. Free speech and free assembly are anachronisms. The reputations of the once-vaunted German centres of learning have vanished. Education has been reduced to a National Socialist catechism.

Pace Quickened. Germany's 700,000 Jews have been tortured physically, robbed of homes and properties, denied a chance to earn a living, chased off the streets. Now they are being held for "ransom," a gangster trick through the ages. But not only Jews have suffered. Out of Germany has come a steady, ever-swelling stream of refugees, Jews and Gentiles, liberals and conservatives, Catholics as well as Protestants, who could stand Naziism no longer. TIME'S cover, showing Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper (see p. 20), a Catholic who found Germany intolerable. Meanwhile, Germany has become a nation of uniforms, goose-stepping to Hitler's tune, where boys of ten are taught to throw hand grenades, where women are regarded as breeding machines. Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.
When Germany took over Austria she took upon herself the care and feeding of 7,000,000 poor relations. When 3,500,000 Sudetens were absorbed, there were that many more mouths to feed. As 1938 drew to a close many were the signs that the Nazi economy of exchange control, barter trade, lowered standard of living, "self-sufficiency," was cracking. Nor were signs lacking that many Germans disliked the cruelties of their Government, but were afraid to protest them. Having a hard time to provide enough bread to go round, Führer Hitler was being driven to give the German people another diverting circus. The Nazi controlled press, jumping the rope at the count of Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels, shrieked insults at real and imagined enemies. And the pace of the German dictatorship quickened as more & more guns rolled from factories and little more butter was produced.

In five years under the Man of 1938, regimented Germany had made itself one of the great military powers of the world today. The British Navy remains supreme on the seas. Most military men regard the French Army as incomparable. Biggest question mark is air strength, which changes from day to day, but most observers believe Germany superior in warplanes. Despite a shortage of trained officers and a lack of materials, the Germany Army has become a formidable machine which could probably be beaten only by a combination of opposing armies. As testimony to his nation's puissance, Führer Hitler could look back over the year and remember that besides receiving countless large-bore statesmen (Mr. Chamberlain three times, for instance), he paid his personal respects to three kings (Sweden's Gustaf, Denmark's Christian, Italy's Vittorio Emanuele) and was visited by two (Bulgaria's Boris, Rumania's Carol—not counting Hungary's Regent, Horthy).
Meanwhile an estimated 1,133 streets and squares, notably Rathaus Platz in Vienna, acquired the name of Adolf Hitler. He delivered 96 public speeches, attended eleven opera performances (way below par), vanquished two rivals (Benes and Kurt von Schuschnigg, Austria's last Chancellor), sold 900,000 new copies of Mein Kampf in Germany besides selling it widely in Italy and Insurgent Spain. His only loss was in eyesight: he had to begin wearing spectacles for work. Last week Herr Hitler entertained at a Christmas party 7,000 workmen now building Berlin's new mammoth Chancellery, told them: "The next decade will show those countries with their patent democracy where true culture is to be found."

But other nations have emphatically joined the armaments race and among military men the poser is: "Will Hitler fight when it becomes definitely certain that he is losing that race?" The dynamics of dictatorship are such that few who have studied Fascism and its leaders can envision sexless, restless, instinctive Adolf Hitler rounding out a mellow middle age in his mountain chalet at Berchtesgaden while a satisfied German people drink beer and sing folk songs. There is no guarantee that the have-not nations will go to sleep when they have taken what they now want from the haves. To those who watched the closing events of the year it seemed more than probable that the Man of 1938 may make 1939 a year to be remembered.


*Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess helped write it. Imprisonment also gave Hitler time to perfect his tactics. Even before that time he got from his Communist opponents the idea of gangsterlike party storm troopers; after this the principle of the small cell groups of devoted party workers.
*Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, also complained of the submissiveness of German character.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

David Petraeus Benghazi Testimony Directly Opposes Obama Regime's Dialogue


David Petraeus Benghazi Testimony Directly Opposes Obama Regime's Dialogue

Refocus Notes:

As predicted, Petraeus indirectly informs us of the reason for his suffering over the last week.

Obama operatives outed his affair after the General refused to play ball under oath to the American people.

Now it gets really interesting....newsflash...did ya think "only" this Obama administration official was the only one under investigation?

Really?!

________________________________________________



Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

"To me the question right now is who changed those talking points and why. ... I'd say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it out," King told Fox News. "That, to me, has to be pursued."

Petraeus left Capitol Hill around noon, after testifying in private hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees. In his wake, Republicans and Democrats battled over whether his testimony should raise more suspicions about the administration's handling of the attack.

King and other Republicans indicated they still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the strike.

"No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," he said.

Petraeus' testimony both challenges the Obama administration's repeated claims that the attack was a "spontaneous" protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.

"His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack," King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a "different recollection."

Still, the claim that the CIA's original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.

"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."

King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line "was taken out."

A congressional source familiar with this week's testimony also told Fox News that the language in the CIA talking points about Benghazi was changed from "Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals to extremist organizations" -- which had the effect of minimizing the role of terrorists in the attack.

"It really changed the whole tone of it," King told Fox News.

Democrats, though, suggested Republicans were taking the whole issue out of context.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said claims the talking points were changed are "completely wrong." Besides, he said, the affiliation of Ansar al-Sharia, the militant group suspected in the attack, to Al Qaeda is still being examined.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the discrepancy can be attributed to the classified talking points that some saw versus the unclassified version that others, like U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, used.

Lawmakers are focusing on the talking points in the first place because of concern over the account Rice gave on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16, when she repeatedly claimed the attack was spontaneous -- Rice's defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.

But a source said Rice had access to both classified and unclassified information on Benghazi. King said the administration has "hidden behind" the claim that Rice was only using the intelligence community's best assessment. But he said Petraeus' testimony suggests their best assessment conflicted with what Rice said on Sept. 16.

One source told Fox News that Petraeus "has no idea what was provided" to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.

"He had no idea she was going on talk shows" until the White House announced it one or two days before, the source said.

Obama in his first post-election press conference Wednesday, called the criticism against Rice "outrageous" and told those lawmakers to "go after me" instead.

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff also came to Rice's defense Thursday, saying after a House intelligence committee hearing that Rice was given the intelligence community's "best assessment" at the time.

"Those who have suggested that Ambassador Rice was politicizing the intelligence or misrepresenting what the intelligence community was putting forward as its best assessment are either unfamiliar with the facts, or willfully disregarding them," he said.

SOURCE: http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2012/11/16/david-petraeus-benghazi-testimony-directly-opposes-obama-regime-s-dialogue

Friday, August 31, 2012

Obama speech to soldiers met with silence


Obama speech to soldiers met with silence


US President Barack Obama addresses troops inside the 1st Aviation Support Battalion Hangar August 31, 2012 at Fort Bliss, Texas. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
President Barack Obama was greeted with fleeting applause and extended periods of silence as he offered profuse praise to soldiers and their families during an Aug. 31 speech in Fort Bliss, Texas.

His praise for the soldiers — and for his own national-security policies — won cheers from only a small proportion of the soldiers and families in the cavernous aircraft-hanger.

The audience remains quiet even when the commander-in-chief thanked the soldiers’ families, and cited the 198 deaths of their comrades in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The audience’s reaction was so flat that the president tried twice to elicit a reaction from the crowd.

“Hey, I hear you,” he said amid silence.

The selected soldiers who were arrayed behind the president sat quietly throughout the speech.

CNN and MSNBC ended their coverage of the speech before it was half-over.

The president’s speech to the soldiers is part of his constitutional duties as commander-in-chief.

But Obama and his wife are also trying to reach out to military families in several critical swing-states, including Virginia and Florida. 

That outreach, however, has been damaged by repeated flubs from the White House, including its public emphasis on soldiers’ wounds rather than on their accomplishments, and Obama’s effort to distance himself from the anti-jihad campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For example, Obama gave Vice President Joe Biden the task of developing a post-war agreement with Iraq’s government in 2009. The effort failed, reducing U.S. gains from the campaign that killed almost 4,500 troops, and as well as thousands of jihadis and Sunni insurgents seeking to regain power. The subsequent withdrawal of nearly all U..S. troops has allowed Iran to increase its influence in Iraq. In turn, that influence helps it support Syria’s dictatorship against Sunni insurgents.

White House officials are trying to avoid additional flubs. On Friday, for example, White House officials rushed to debunk a report that the president had used an autopen to sign condolence letters to soldiers’ families.

Throughout Friday’s speech, the loudest reactions came when the president name-checked the nicknames of the soldiers’ brigades. Major military units have their own rival cheers, and those could be heard from portions of the audience when he referred to individual units.

The troops’ silence continued through several obvious applause-lines.

There was isolated cheers when Obama said his withdrawal policy would ensure “fewer deployments … more time to prepare for the future, and it means more time on the home front, with your families, your home and kids.”

The silence deepened when the president lauded his strategy of withdrawal from the war. “Make no mistake, ending the wars responsibly makes us safer and our military even stronger, and ending these wars is letting us do something else; restoring American leadership,” he said amid complete silence.

When he said demobilized soldiers would find jobs because “all of you have the skills America needs,” he got little reaction.

There was no reaction when he promised stepped-up recruitment of soldiers for police jobs.

He won some applause when he announced his support for soldiers injured in combat.

The most enthusiastic applause came when he lauded the soldiers’ military mission, and promised continued support for that professional task.

An anecdote about his meeting with a wounded soldier was met with a tepid response, until he described the soldier’s determination to recover and return to his unit. “He’s where every soldier wants to be – back with his unit,” Obama said, generating applause.

Similarly, his declaration that “around the world there’s a new attitude toward America, a new confidence in our leadership” yielded only silence, while his next sentence — “When people are asked ‘Which country do you admire most?’ one nation always comes out on top, the United States of America” — prompted relative enthusiasm.

The White House’s video-feed cut off 10 seconds after the president finished his speech, before the audience’s reaction overall could be gauged by viewers.


Obama warm to scientists, cold to soldiers




Two of President Barack Obama’s public appearances Friday provided a study in his starkly contrasting attitudes toward two very different constituencies: the scientific community and the United States military.
First, the president fulfilled his campaign promise to pull U.S. forces from Iraq by announcing the withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011. His subdued briefing came from the dark blue White House press podium.
Less than two hours later, however, he used the bright and gilded East Room of the White House to formally present awards to top-flight scientists. After a military honor guard formally saluted the nation’s colors, Obama declared: “Thanks to the men and women on the stage, we are one step closer to curing diseases like cancer and Parkinson’s … I hope everybody enjoys this wonderful celebration and reception, and again, thank you so much for helping to make the world a better place.”
The president’s tone was markedly different as he announced the troop withdrawal, focusing more on regret than on victories won.
“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war to a responsible end … After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he said at the start of his clipped, six-minute presentation. “There will be some difficult days ahead for Iraq … Here at home, the coming months will be another season of homecomings.”
Obama is already campaigning for re-election, and the troop withdrawal from Iraq will please the important progressive wing of the Democratic Party. That liberal faction boosted him into the presidency after he declared in 2002 that the proposed removal of Iraq’s dictator would be a “dumb war.”
Progressives often laud their university peers in the science sector, however. 
“One of the best ways we can inspire more young people to think big, dream big dreams, is by honoring the people who already do: folks who are smart and aren’t afraid to show it, but also folks who have taken that brilliance and gone out and changed the world,” Obama said in the 20-minute ceremony, before a military aide read commendations while the president placed medals on 12 U.S. and foreign-born scientists.
“It’s important to recognize that work, and to help make it easier for inventors and innovators like them to bring their work from the lab to the marketplace and create jobs,” Obama beamed.
Instead of providing similar praise for the accomplishments of U.S. troops, however, Obama emphasized their suffering. “This December will be a time to reflect on all that we’ve been though in this war,” he said, not to celebrate the campaign’s accomplishments.
Obama did not mention Iraq’s deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, nor the success of seeing democratic elections, nor the emergence of the long-suppressed Shia majority, nor the U.S. military’s remarkable victory against the coalition of Hussein’s die-hards, Sunni tribes, Iranian gunmen and Syrian-aided Islamist suicide bombers.
The most poignant moment came in a subsequent briefing by deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough. He said that during a morning video conference with the White House, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki showed “what appeared to me to be genuine appreciation of the sacrifice … that the troops and their families have put on the line for Iraq’s future.”
More than 4,500 U.S. and allied troops lost their lives — and nearly 30,000 sustained injuries — trying to establish and protect democracy in Iraq.
During his brief appearance, Obama did not mention al-Qaida’s strategic defeat in Iraq, coming as a result of Arabs’ collective recoil from Islamists’ suicide bombings aimed at other Arabs in Iraq’s cities and towns.
Despite growing opposition from ordinary Arabs and Muslims, al-Qaida used those shocking tactics because it believed that Bush’s plan to establish democracy in Iraq would be an ideological defeat of its core belief that the Arab world should be ruled by a Baghdad-based Muslim theocratic dictator — dubbed the caliph.
“The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation,” said a 2004 message from Osama bin Laden. That war, he said, urging Islamist gunmen to fight in Iraq, “is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.”
The “land of the two rivers” is Iraq, whose geography is framed by the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Now those gunmen and bin Laden are dead. And the capital of the would-be caliphate is under the secure control of an elected government and army led by Shia Muslims, who al-Qaida considers heretics.
During the Democratic presidential primary, Obama showed his opposition to the Iraq campaign by promising to withdraw U.S. troops, even if the departure resulted in a bloody civil war.
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama told the Associated Press.
“It was the dominant issue [in the 2008 race and] … then-Senator Obama took a very clear position,” a White House spokesman said at Friday’s press conference.
Obama did include some brief references to the trials of U.S. troops.
“The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success,” he said, before he depicted the soldiers as wounded and in need of help from domestic government programs. “We’ll honor our many wounded warriors and the nearly 4,500 American patriots — and their Iraqi and coalition partners — who gave their lives to this effort … we’ll never stop working to give them and their families the care, the benefits and the opportunities that they have earned.”
Obama also played up U.S. diplomats’ role moving forward. “With our diplomats and civilian advisers in the lead,” the president said, “we’ll help Iraqis strengthen institutions that are just, representative and accountable.”
The president’s remarks ended with a call for Americans to turn inwards. “After a decade of war,” he said, “the nation that we need to build — and the nation that we will build — is our own.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/obama-warm-to-scientists-cold-to-soldiers/#ixzz25AY3ECXw


Saturday, February 25, 2012

Following Keystone Rejection Canada's Oil Sands Headed to China


The price of crude oil in Canada is impacted by global supply and demand, inventory levels in the United States, and geopolitical events.  Canadian Oil price per barrel - $30 USD Price of Arab Oil $120 USD ? "Furious at the setback, Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper threatened to sell the output to China."             Why Is the US willing to buy Arab Oil when Canada has cheaper crude?



Following Keystone Rejection Canada's Oil Sands Headed to China


By John Daly | 

Beginning in 2005, Congressional Republicans and the oil industry touted the 2,147 mile-long Keystone XL 830,000 barrel per day (bpd) pipeline, running from Canada’s Hardisty, Alberta oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

But last month, in an attempt to force a decision from the Obama administration on the pipeline, congressional Republicans tacked a rider onto legislation extending the payroll tax cut by requiring the government to decide within 60 days on the issue, which was rejected for the foreseeable future.
Furious at the setback, Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper threatened to sell the output to China. Last week Harper made an official visit to China and the fruits of that trip are already evident. During a Canada-China business dinner in Guangzhou Harper informed his audience, “We are an emerging energy superpower. We have abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy. And you know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy. It's that simple,” adding that virtually all of Canada's energy exports currently go to the U.S. and that it was “increasingly clear” that Canadian commercial interests are best served by diversifying its energy markets.

Guangdong Province Governor Zhu Xiaodan, who attended the dinner, noted that southern China consumes an enormous and ever growing amount of energy and needs additional supplies, telling his guest, "It's our hope in the future we can import more high-quality energy and resource products from Canada." U.S. government statistics bear Harper’s assertions out - according to the U.S. Energy Administration Canada is now the leading exporter of oil to the United States, providing 2.6 million barrels per day (mbpd) of the 9.03 mbpd the U.S. imports every day.

But for Ottawa finding alternative markets is an increasingly high priority, as oil sands have been under development in Alberta since 1967 and investments there now exceed $97 billion.

An alternative to the fickle Americans seems to be on the horizon and Zhu’s hopes have been answered.  The Calgary Herald reported on 17 February that Canadian oilsands producer Cenovus Energy Inc. has sent its first shipment of crude oil to China.

Not via the controversial alternative to Keystone XL, the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, designed to ship oilsands to Canada’s Pacific coast. According to Cenovus Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Brian Ferguson, the company has sent its first half tanker-load of oil of roughly 250,000 barrels, to an unspecified Chinese customer.

After telling reporters that Cenovus Energy Inc. tripled its fourth-quarter 2011 profits over the corresponding period in 2010 Ferguson said, "We actually just sold our first cargo last week. It's very significant because what it allows us to do is establish a relationship with refineries in terms of how they value and price Cenovus crude. So it's very significant strategically."

Perhaps not surprisingly, Ferguson participated in Harper's trade mission to China.

How did the Cenovus Energy Inc. oilsands reach Canada’s western coast for transshipment?

According to Ferguson, his firm utilized the existing TransMountain Pipeline, which runs from Edmonton to the Westridge Marine Terminal near Vancouver, sending 12,000 bpd through the facility. While most of Cenovus Energy Inc. oilsands’ oil began to be shipped in late 2011, the majority was sent to customers in California and represents less than 10 percent of Cenovus Energy Inc.’s overall oil output, it helped generate the massive profits that Ferguson crowed about, because the crude received a premium over mid-continent Canadian oil by being priced in relation to Brent crude instead of the less expensive West Texas Intermediate.

As Ferguson noted, “It's allowing us to get tidewater pricing off Brent so there's a significant uplift per barrel in terms of price realization.”

Cenovus Energy Inc. has bigger long-term export plans for its oilsands production beyond a mere 12,000 bpd. Cenovus Energy Inc. is a major backer of Enbridge Inc.'s controversial proposed 745 mile-long, $5.5-billion, 525,000 bpd Northern Gateway pipeline, which would stretch from Bruderheim, northeast of Edmonton, to the coastal community of Kitimat in British Colombia, providing an export link to customers in Asia.

But the Northern Gateway pipeline, with a projected operational date of 2017 is hardly a done deal, having aroused the ire of Canadian environmentalists nationwide.
And Cenovus Energy Inc. is thinking beyond the present, as Ferguson noted that the firm is continuing to seek a joint venture partner for its Telephone Lake oilsands assets in northern Alberta, with international investors increasingly expressing interest.

So, floods of yuan or a pristine environment? It seems that Harper’s government and Cenovus Energy Inc. have no doubt where Canada’s future lies.
By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com

High gasoline prices are part of the plan


Gas prices are spiking. That’s great news, right? We have to wean ourselves off the stuff. At least that’s what we’ve been hearing for years. Oil is dirty. We import it from nations that hate our guts (like Canada!). And moreover, we’re running out. Oil is “finite.” Finite much in the way water is finite.
So why aren’t Democrats making the case that the spike in prices is a good thing? Isn’t this basically our energy policy these days? How we “win the future”? If high energy prices were to damage President Barack Obama’s re-election prospects, it would be ironic, considering the left has been telling us to set aside our “dependency” — or, as our most recent Republican president put it, “addiction” — for a long time.
If Democrats had their way, after all, we would be enjoying the economic results of cap-and-trade policy these days — a program designed to increase the cost of energy by creating false demand in a fabricated market. As the theory goes, if you inflate the price of fossil fuels, the barbarians might finally start putting thought into how peat moss might be able to power a toaster.
In 2008, Steven Chu, Obama’s (and, sadly, our own) future secretary of energy (sic) lamented, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” The president, when asked whether he thought $4-a-gallon gas prices were good for the American economy, said, “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”
How gradual? Like, what, four years? Or is it eight?
Part of “figuring it out” surely had something to do with the recent decision by Obama to nix the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline project that would have pumped 700,000 barrels of oil per day into the United States. More oil just means more excessive, immoral, ugly energy use.
Well, get used to it. You can’t take three steps without stepping over some potential 10 billion-barrel reserve of dead organisms.
According to the Institute for Energy Research, there is enough natural gas in the U.S. to meet electricity demand for 575 years at current fuel demand, enough to fuel homes heated by natural gas for 857 years and more gas in the U.S. than there is in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some place called Turkmenistan combined. Oil? The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s top oil producer. There are tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore oil here at home — and much more oil around the world.
Yes, gas prices have spiked an average of 14 cents a gallon in the past month and about 30 cents a gallon since last November, according to AAA. Oil prices jumped to a nine-month high — more than $105 a barrel — after the Iranians shut down their own energy exports to Britain and France so they could start a much-needed nuclear program, which is, no doubt, for wholly peaceful purposes.
Given the fungability of commodities and the track record of civilization in the Middle East, we’ll likely always have to deal with occasionally painful fluctuations in the price of energy, regardless of what we do at home — drilling and new pipelines included. Still, fluctuations have a lot better track record than price controls.
Subsidizing quixotic green companies or creating carbon credits won’t stop the rules of basic economics. If the gas crunch starts hitting the economy, it’s doubtless that we will get an earful of populist hand-wringing and that we’ll hear the administration once again blame wealthy speculators and nasty oil companies.
Yet in the end, high gas prices are part of the plan. This is what the administration wants. source:

Oil hovers above $106 in Asia amid growing tension over Iran’s nuclear program


SINGAPORE — Oil prices hovered above $106 a barrel Wednesday in Asia amid concern that conflict over Iran’s nuclear program could lead to global crude supply disruptions.
Benchmark crude for April delivery was up 11 cents to $106.36 per barrel late afternoon Singapore time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract rose $2.65 to settle at $106.25, the highest since May, in New York on Tuesday.


Brent crude was down 16 cents at $121.50 per barrel in London.
Oil has jumped from $96 earlier this month amid escalating tension between Western powers and Iran.
On Tuesday, Iran Gen. Mohammed Hejazi warned his country is prepared to carry out a pre-emptive strike against any nation that threatens Iran. His comments followed Iran’s announcement of war games to practice protecting nuclear and other sensitive sites — viewed as a message to the U.S. and Israel that the Islamic Republic is ready both to defend itself and to retaliate against an armed strike.
Iran said over the weekend that it will stop selling oil to Britain and France in retaliation for a planned European oil embargo this summer.
The move was mainly symbolic — Britain and France import almost no oil from Iran — but it raised concerns that Iran, which produces almost 4 million barrel a day of crude, could take the same hard line with other European nations that use more Iranian crude.
“A real stoppage of 4 million barrels a day will send crude markets to at least $130,” Carl Larry of Oil Outlooks and Opinions said in a report. “A stoppage longer than a month will push that number to $150. Damage to oil fields or transport areas will add even more premium that will not go away for years.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry also said Tuesday that visiting inspectors won’t be able to tour the country’s nuclear facilities. An International Atomic Energy Agency team arrived in Tehran this week hoping to monitor Iran’s nuclear program. Instead it will only hold talks with officials about ways to cooperate in the future.
The West fears Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Iran denies the charges, and says its program is for peaceful purposes.
Some analysts expect an improving U.S. economy and tight global crude supplies will also help boost prices. Goldman Sachs said it expects crude to rise to $123.50 during the next 12 months.
“Stronger-than-expected demand against limited inventory and scarce excess production capacity leaves the market extremely vulnerable to price spikes in the near-to-medium term,” Goldman Sachs said in a report. “It is important to emphasize that a spike in oil prices would most likely inflict damage on the economic recovery.”
In other energy trading, heating oil fell 0.1 cent to $3.23 per gallon and gasoline futures slid 0.4 cent to $3.24 per gallon. Natural gas added 0.5 cent to $2.63 per 1,000 cubic feet.