(40H) 5/31/14

Minimum wage again—those companies that would be affected by them said they would turn to more automation—like self check outs, toll roads–those who have said they would do this is Amazon, McDonalds, Panera and many restaurants.
57% of small businesses will cut jobs due to the minimum wage. Consumers financial protection bureau (CFPB) getting bonuses worth $5 million and these are not being based on performance. They currently make $117,297 a year.

Obama has promised over $5 billion for terrorist per Monntel Williams—should have apologized to the soldiers instead and used that money at the VA. Obama has stated that the VA is his top priority. Treatments times at many VA offices have gone from 24 days to 100 days. VA budget in 2005 $68.9 billion in 2013 it was $136 billion and in 2014 it is $150.9 billion. There is a lot of fraud in upper management at the VA. IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBVLEM TO JUST THROW MORE MONEY AT IT??
The claim is the doctors at the VA are under paid—not making what a private practice doctor does. Again mentioned was the raised given at the VA without reviews?

US economy shrinks by -1% in first quarter of 2014. but he can give $1.3 billion for a MFG center—$1.3B in a $17 trillion economy is going to do what? Our growth has been in 1982—1.9%, 1985-4.2%, 1988-4.3%. 2009 2.8%, 2012-2.8%, and as of first quarter in is at –1.0%. his new regulations dealing with Global Warming (36 of them) is expected to cost the average American $11,000/year—$50 Billion in total. This will be in the form of new taxes on goods like—microwave-$14.00, Dishwasher-$44.00, refig.-$83.00, A/C unit-$320.00, mortgages $362.00, HC premiums $108.00, and a car $3100.00.
By the way Germany is into all of this carbon business and their electric costs are 3 times that of the USA, due to cap and trade there.
Should the government or the parents tell their kids what to eat?

Another white house investigation on who named the CIA agent. Another one and still no results on these investigations—Benghazi, VA, GAO, GSA, FAST AND FURIOUS, IRS, NSA, SECRET SERVICE, AP, LEAKS.
With all of these major problems what does Obama divert attention to —injuries in the NFL!


5/31/14 (53H)

The end of the Cold War was supposed to have ended such anachronisms, but Americans awoke to the danger still menacing the world. Western elites have consigned geopolitical competition to the dustbin of history big-power rivalry is back. Of the three major revisionist, Russia and Iran have been most aggressive, but China is the strongest and has the greatest potential to upend the geopolitical arrangements.
China’s sheer size, economic dynamism, increasing global interests, long peacetime military buildup, and sheer will to power pose the greatest challenges to the structure of international politics dominated by the USA.
Only a decade ago, those who wrote about the growing competition between China and the US were dismissed as alarmists and the US needs to prepare itself for a long-term great-power competition.
Geoff Dryer makes three arguments in the contest of the century—China having accrued more power, has shifted its approach to the world and now perceives the US as weak. Communist party members are abandoning Deng Ziaoping’s guidance to “bide our time and hide our capabilities”,
Chinas now “seeks to share the worked according to its won national interests,” moving from “rule taker to rule maker”.
Chinas is engaging in a geopolitical competition with the USA from the control of the oceans, to currency. “China’s leader think very much in geopolitical terms and would like to gradually erode the bases of Ame4rican power”.
US is in a strong position to “deflect” the Chinese challenge, he makes his case by assessing the military, political and economic dimensions of the competition, including the many dilemmas and challenges that China faces in its quest for primacy.

China’s military spends “90% of its time thinking about new and interesting ways to sink our ships and shoot down our planes. It is building ships and precision strike and cyber warfare capabilities at an astonishing pace. China’s leaders are working to push the US Navy back form the “Near Seas”. While the Western Pacific is the center of gravity for the contest of the seas, the Chinese military is also looking to use the Indians Oceans to protect its seaborne traffic. It has developed ports and access agreements with Pakistan and Sri Lanks. Little doubt that China is developing the means both to break out into the Indians Ocean and to protect its own maritime supply routes.
Dryer wisely identifies the obstacles to Chinese ambitions. While china may be accreting more power and influence so are many other countries: India, Vietnam and Indonesia. None of these countries wants to live in a region dominated by China. Because each to is a postcolonial power that is prickly about its sovereignty and strategic autonomy.
“America’s choices” is; If Washington makes the right choices by using deft diplomacy to win friends and influence people, keeping a continue, if subtle, emphasis on American values and principles and establishing leadership on trade and the deterrence of Chinese aggression, America will maintain its prime place in Asian geopolitics.
A conflict with China would be unlike anything the US has ever fought: China is a nuclear armed continental power with massive strategic depth and a dynamic economy that can provide resources for defense. And a rapid defense of allies.
It also would require American nuclear supremacy another anachronistic idea that even Dryer’s hardheaded analysis ignore. Superior nuclear capabilities could deter conflict in the first instance. Dryer falls into the trap of thinking that there is some way to fight China through “indirect approaches,” which would keep a conflict limited and manageable. Rather than an ulcer, Washington would have to induce cardiac arrest to stop Chinese aggression. Asia watchers: that, somehow, both Beijing and Washington can intensify their competition while other Asian states maintain neutrality. This is unlikely. Both protagonists need Asian counties on their side to win.
Dryer convincingly argues that china has many limitations and obstacles to its aspiration as a great power. Beijing seems unable to confront its manifold political-economic weaknesses. The Chinese system is just not attractive outside china or to the Chinese themselves. Our democratic system assures long-term political stability.
The big question is whether the US will translate its strengths into continued power and whether it will use this power wisely to maintain our prime position in the face of a dynamic challenger.
Ashely Tellis sharpens the argument regarding how and why the US must come out ahead in its contest china. The greatest obstacles to peace are not “misunderstandings” that can, somehow, be resolved by “confidence-building mechanism” and “trust building”. The US must retain its global primacy to protect its manifold interest. A world safe for open markets, the free exchange of ideas and commerce, and the development of liberal polities. Strategic autonomy to defend ourselves against threats before they arrive on American territory and unfettered ability to protect allies and to provide global goods form which we also benefit. China is the challenge because of its leaders starkly different conception about what constitutes a good global order.
Any effort to contain China would be counterproductive, as it is a hub of global commerce form, which all trading countries benefit. Tasks include building a military power second to none, shoring up allies throughout Asia, and enacting domestic economic reforms to facilitate the next wave of economic growth through dominance in innovations.
Washington has to prepare itself for a long, protracted, and complex competition with a sophisticated adversary. Wee know that china will compete vigorously for power. The big question is where WE will.


Sources—weekly standard, Ashley tellis, geoff dyer, dan blumenthal


(51GH) 5/30/14

A raft of new Education dept. regulations has been bobbing among the roiling waters of fro nearly a month now. Sen. Lamar Alexander answer is to Stop, Then start over.
The new rules work the way government regulations often do. They address a genuine if relatively small problem with a large and bafflingly complicated solution aimed at one business sector currently disfavored by government while leaving another sector, as needful of reform but favored by government, entirely alone.
The unlucky targets of the regulations are the nation’s roughly 3500 proprietary colleges and universities. “Proprietary” is the term that these privately owned and operated businesses prefer to use to describe themselves. The regulators prefer to call them “for profit” colleges and universities.
Regulators and activists—and journalist too, of course—use the phrase “for profit” to suggest that something vaguely disreputable is going on. They correct a failure in the higher education market by serving nontraditional students that other post-secondary schools haven’t reached. Today more that 13% of the students enrolled in degree-granting post-secondary schools attend a for-profit program. As a group the students are heavily weighted toward what the trade call nontraditional: veterans, olders, the disabled, single mothers and people who are already employed but seeking new jobs in a new fields. CA for instance, cut more than a half million students form its community college system between 2009-2012. They are more flexible in meeting the irregular needs of nontraditional students, and adjust to new kinds of jobs and new technological demands. At for-profits the completion rates for one-and two-year certificate programs are nearly 10% higher than in comparable public schools. The rate at which students default on their (taxpayer guaranteed) student loans is scandalously high: 26%m, compared with 10% at community colleges and 4% for 4-year students.
The intervention here 841 pages of draft regulations issued for public comment last month. Complicated, to simplify, the government will effectively shut down for-profit programs that don’t meet its newly minted criteria for acceptable levels of student debt. A school’s average student debt, for example, may not exceed 8% of student’s total income or 20% of their disposable income. Any schools with a student-load default rate higher than 30% will no longer be eligible for the loans, putting it out of business. Arne Duncan will likely shutter 20% of for profit programs and place another 10% on a path to closing. Note that traditional nonprofit schools are exempt from the new rules, regardless of their student debt levels or default rates. Low paying jobs in education or social work will have more difficulty finding a program to train them.
The proprietaries “are reaching students in a different way, opening in places where there are no community colleges. They are filling the cracks”. The cracks will reopen.
Encouraging students take on mountains of debt of worthless degrees—can be applied with equal force, to many nonprofit colleges too. Higher education industry has become ravenous, hopelessly dependent for their survival on federally guaranteed loans and grants.
While the regulators penalize the for profits the nonprofits are free to spend their guaranteed loans and grants on new athletic centers, lavish food courts, designer dormitories, world class sports teams and other First World amenities. “Non profit is a term of art in the tax code, not an operating philosophy, who in turn take on more debt.
They have spent lavishly on Washington talent to press their case to Congress with varying degrees of knowledge and sincerity. David Halperin has gleefully documented the range of celebrities whose pockets have filled with the industries silver from Colin Powell to Bob Kerrey to Lanny Davis to Wesley Clark and Michelle Rhee.
The republican house take over in 2010 made executive congressional cooperation messy and unpleasant and in most cases impossible. The executive is seizing territory that is rightly congress’s—territory that should be shaped through political rather that bureaucratic means.
The adm doesn’t want to be troubled with the messiness of democratic process. When the regulations were issued: the best thing about them is “the plan can be implemented without any congressional involvement”.

Sources—weekly standard, Andrew ferguson, NYT, david deming


(4H) 5/30/14

The restructing plan that Detroit has recently proposed suggest that the city’s bankruptcy may have more in common with the car bailouts that anyone imagined. The centerpiece is a $816 million art-for-pensions deal. A group of donors including the Ford, Kresge and Knight foundations propose to pay at least $330 million for the Detroit Institute of Art’s (DIA) collection so long as, among other things the state of Michigan contributes $350 million., the collection is transferred to a non-profit trust that will keep it in Detroit, and the funds are used to increase the bankruptcy payout to Detroit’s retirees.
By direction the proceeds of the sale to Detroit’s working-class pension beneficiaries, it also preempts complaints that fine art is unimportant. The $816 million would assure that pension beneficiaries receive a much higher percentage of what they are owed than many feared.
The art-for-pensions deal achieves these benefits by flouting the bankruptcy rules. Pension beneficiaries are only one of many groups of creditors. The idea that Detroit could sell its art and use the proceeds to pay them but not other creditors flatly contradicts the core bankruptcy principle that similarly situated creditors need to be giving similar treatment. The city and the foundations cannot simply decide that they will pay pension beneficiaries but not, say the holders of Detroit’s bonds.
That’s a fraudulent transfer of assets. Defenders of the art deal argue that a buyer can set any terms it wants for a sale. In this case, the buyers won’t put up the money unless the funds go to pension recipients. In 2009, the government arranged for Chrysler to “sell” its assets to a newly created entity for $2 billion for less than the assets were worth. The new entity was required to make massive payments to Chrysler’s retirees and trade creditors, while giving its senior lender only a fraction of what they were owed. New Chrysler had simply decided to make payments to the favored creditors after and apart form the sale itself. The $2 billion was distributed to Old Chrysler’s creditors in accordance with normal bankruptcy rules according got this reasoning.
Detroit art deals aren’t even pretending. They not only want to be the only bidders in the sale; they also want to decide what happens with heir funds in the bankruptcy case. Oddly, Detroit’s unions have complained nearly as loudly about the art deal as other creditors.
One reason is that the unions seem to be worried about the precedent. If Detroit’s pensions can be restructured so can the pensions of other cities. The pensions can be restructured union representatives run the risk of being voted out of office unless they insist that pension beneficiaries be paid every last penny, even if the creditors get far less.
Detroit’s and the “buyers” do not have the power to unilaterally dictate what happens with the funds form the sale. They must be approved by the judge. A key requirement for approval is that the restructuring cannot “unfairly discriminate” in favor of one group or creditors and against other groups. Giving pension beneficiaries nearly 100% of what they are owed and bondholders less than 20% is obvious discrimination. But other buyers clearly could be found for the art if the city really intended to sell it.
The unfair discrimination standard has enough flexibility to justify a somewhat higher payout for pensions beneficiaries than for bondholders and other creditors.
As T.S. Eliot wrote, “the last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason”.

Source—weekly standard, david skeel


(47H) 5/30/14

Is Obama’s threat of preventive military action against the Iranian regimes nuclear programs credible? Is he prepared to attack if Tehran denies the international atomic energy agency, the UN nuclear watchdog? Is he prepared to strike if the regime denies inspectors access to the personnel and documents that would allow the West to see whether how much the regime has been lying about weaponization? These are question that Iran’s leaders, Khamenei and Rouhani have undoubtedly asked since 2008.
Khamenei, Rouhani and others has no intention of rolling back its nuclear progress. Here’s how Khamenei put it on April 9 in a meeting with officials of Iran’s Republic’s activities in the fields of nuclear research and development will in no way be halted and not a single nuclear accomplishment will be suspended or stopped.
Participates described the proceedings so far as a take-and-give exchange, where the Iranian negotiation team grimaces and the Americans back off. Obama hasn’t yet wanted to push for example, on an inspections regime that would allow the IAEA to visit undeclared sites that may house nuclear weapon related research.
Expeditionary efforts (see Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, the Gaza Strip, AFG, and terrorism, a rational person might conclude that a nuclear deal denying the IAEA spot inspections at Revolutionary Guard facilities is to put it politely defective. Obama intellectual soul mates have been in constant retreat over the last decade about what should be demanded of the Islamic Republic. To position where an Iranian “freeze” would be just fine and an intrusive inspections regime covering undeclared sites unnecessarily provocative. It likely won’t be long before the Plough-shares, Fund, the Carnegie Endowment, the New America Foundation and the Brookings Institution tell us that pushing the “moderates” in Tehran—Rouhani and Zarif against the revolutionary guards would be counterproductive since the guards are prickly nationalist who could torpedo everything.
Increased “transparency” of known sites, which the Iranian regime is allowing, will have to be enough—even thought the capacity and proclivity to lie and cheat has been a hallmark of the Islamic Republic since the 2002 disclosure of the then-hidden Natanz and Arak nuclear facilities. We will assuredly hear some nonproliferation folks against emphasize the competence of American intelligence.
James Clapper who suggested the intelligence community would know if Iran decided to build a bomb, downplayed will be the unpleasant history of the CIA, which missed every successful clandestine nuclear weaponization (the USSR, Communist China, Pakistan, North Korea and probably Israel and South Africa, too) since the end of WW2. The Islamic Republics final dash to the bomb might not be conducted at monitored sites.
The final comprehensive deal that Washington should accept, no dismantling of centrifuges no explicit ban on the future production of centrifuges: no reduction in the low-enriched uranium stockpile, allowing Tehran sufficient LEU to refine further into a half-dozen bombs; no closure of the bomb resistant underground enrichment plant at Arak or even its conversion to light water reactor that can’t produce bomb-grade plutonium; no meaningful, verifiable restrictions on centrifuge research; no linkage between the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and the nuclear program; no serious debriefings of Iranian nuclear personnel with their paperwork in hand; and certainly no acknowledgment by Teheran of its past efforts at nuclear weaponization (the non[proliferation cognoscenti call this the “possible military dimension” of the programs or PMD).
If a private poll were held, it would most likely show that the vast majority of liberal nonproliferation experts would strongly prefer a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic to preventive military strikes unleashed by Obama.
The west could get utterly lost in measuring the ultimate nonproliferation desideratum: Iranian SWU’s (separative work units”—the mount of uranium separation done by an enrichment process). Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Plough-shares Fund the preeminent left wing funder of nonproliferation studies—PW= the political willingness to enforce the deal.
One pivotal component of the equation-PW is Obama’s willingness to bomb the ball bearings out the of the Iranian regime’s nuclear facilities. In January to stop Dems senators form passing legislation that would have mandated new sanction against Tehran if it failed to conclude a verifiable termination of its nuclear-weapons program through the joint Plan of Action or if Tehran engaged in a terrorist act at any time, the dems let loose the animadversion most feared among liberal to be labeled a warmonger. The tactic worked brilliantly? Dems senators caved en masse.
But the nuclear negotiation s ultimately hinge, as even Cirincione sees, on the presidents willingness to unleash the Air Force and Navy. White house doesn’t want to use the threat of force before the negotiations end but the Iranian regime always use Machtpolitik to get what it wants and if we don’t we’re not serious.
To provide dems political domestic cover, a show of toughness for the electorate and perhaps a bit of psychological salve for themselves.
The US armed might—not economic coercion or reward—has always been the best trump that Washington could use to neutralize Tehran’s atomic aspirations.
Iran’s nuclear program accelerated after 2005 with Mahmond Ahmadinejad’s presidential triumph, which Khamenei celebrated, and with the floundering of the Bush adm in Iraq. Obama has consistently resisted or diluted bipartisan congressional efforts strengthen sanctions against the Islamic republic.
Since 2008 Tehran has ramped up its centrifuge production, uranium enrichment, heavy water reactor construction and ballistic missile development. Iran has probably made more progress in it nuclear weapons program on Obama’s watch that at any earlier time.
Progress at the heavy water reactor at Arak which if completed could produce plutonium, has been constant—but not a damn the consequences mad dash (again, parts may be a factor).
The president and senior officials should be playing on the supreme leaders longstnding insecurity vis a vis American might. Sanctions alone were never going to stop the mullahs’ nuclear quest.
But nothing could be more helpful—intimidation to Tehran—than to have congress “handcuff” the president through legislation now clearly defining the terms of successful nuclear negotiations and the consequences for Iran’s of failure.
In the end they would accept an agreement that neither dismantles nor intrusively monitors the Iranian regimes atomic achievements. If president obama isn’t in this camp, then he needs to overcome his aversion to seeing diplomacy as an adjunct to the threat of war. The Iranian regime plays hardball. To win now, we have to openly prepare to fight.
Source—weekly standard, reuel marc gerecht

Will This Impeach Obama?:

(28-48JH) 5/28/14
Another, potentially far more disastrous, Administration policy has proceeded without delay but with very little notice: The shipment of massive amounts of advanced weaponry to Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups in Syria. the evidence is overwhelming that the U.S. government is shipping advanced anti-aircraft weapons to Islamic terrorist groups … despite fears in Congress that these weapons may be used against American civilian airliners!
· How and why the Obama Administration has been secretly arming Islamic fundamentalist groups in Egypt and Libya, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, despite opposition from Congress … Why the Obama Administration was forced to waive a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups …
He is giving deadly weapons to Al-Qaeda: Weapon systems designed to shoot airplanes out of the sky … weapons that make no distinction between military and civilian airplanes. The Obama Administration has shipped these state-of-the-art weapons directly to Al-Qaeda affiliates in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He is threatening any potential whistle-blower into silence.
Or you may have seen me on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, CNBC and the Fox Business Channel … on shows with Bill O’Reilly, John Stossel, Judge Napolitano, Bill Moyers, Lou Dobbs and others… my friend Charles Goyette does a great job outlining common sense strategies for individuals to protect themselves and their families.”
I’ll tear the wraps off the MASSIVE cover-up of what U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was really doing in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, the night he was so ruthlessly murdered Now, imagine what could happen when the public awakes to the documented fact that President Barack Hussein Obama has secretly given deadly weapons to Al-Qaeda affiliates who have sworn to slaughter every American possible.
But I assure you, it IS true. And I’m not the only analyst who’s reporting this explosive story.
TIME Magazine … CNN … Fox News … The New York Times and many others have reported on this story, too. In August 2013, for instance, TIME Magazine asked …
“Does Obama Support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?”
Earlier, in June, FOX News reported .“As Egypt unravels, Team Obama increases support for Muslim Brotherhood.”
As incredible as it sounds, the Obama Administration … with the full knowledge and approval of key members of Congress and the intelligence services … is shipping MASSIVE amounts of guns, missiles and high-technology weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood. Who is the Muslim Brotherhood? A global Islamist organization that seeks to reestablish the historic global Muslim empire, or Caliphate, extending from Indonesia in Asia all the way to Spain.
According to Court documents in the United States, the Brotherhood’s goal is …
“a kind of grand Jihad for eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In June, Tarek Fatah of the Toronto Sun, in an article entitled, “Obama Arming America’s Enemies,” asked why the Obama Administration is “providing funding and possible future arms to Al-Qaida-inspired terrorists.”
In Egypt, Fatah pointed out the Obama Administration had “waived the conditions of human rights observance that it had attached to any future military sales to Egypt. Secretary John Kerry asked Congress to release $1.3 billion in U.S. military support for 2013. This, despite evidence that Egypt was violating the human rights of its own citizens, particularly of its Christian population.
Nevertheless, the Obama Administration began shipping MASSIVE amounts of advanced, high-tech weapons to rebels based in the Libyan seaside city of … Benghazi. The Obama Administration, with help from NATO sources, also began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya — which included a series of bombing attacks that Congress insisted were unconstitutional.
Even the left-wing activist Ralph Nader branded Obama a “war criminal” and called for his impeachment. And after U.S. naval forces launched 110 cruise missiles at military targets in Libya, another liberal suggested that Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize. Because just as critics predicted, Libya quickly devolved into an outlaw paradise as Islamic fundamentalists, armed with guns provided by the Obama Administration, began to take over.
By some accounts, the real purpose of Stevens’ visit to Benghazi was to orchestrate efforts to buy back shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles from Al-Qaeda militias — missiles that had been earlier provided by the State Department to the rebels.
Some reports even claimed that Stevens was trying to ship these weapons to rebels in Syria — via arms dealers in Turkey.
As The New York Times reported in late 2012:
“The Obama Administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.”
Nevertheless, according to one report, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed with the weapons shipments because she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
There is no conclusive evidence yet that the weapons from the U.S. State Department were used in the Benghazi attack, but there is overwhelming evidence that the U.S. guns were going to hard-core, anti-American jihadists like the ones who attacked the U.S. compound.
The New York Times explained it this way:
“Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were ‘more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam’ than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.”
The U.S. government wants to portray the Syrian rebels as democratic freedom fighters.
Secretary of State John Kerry estimates that “only” 15 percent to 20 percent are “bad guys” or extremists. But the facts on the ground directly contradict that cheery assessment. One military official estimated that Al-Qaeda affiliated radical Islamic groups in Syria now constitutes “more than 50 percent” of the rebel force “and are growing by the day.” The evidence points to the conclusion that many of the Islamist rebels the Obama Administration supports in Syria are made up, the Times said, of “gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.”
Despite this, the Obama Administration has been secretly supplying literally billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons to these brutal terrorist organizations — just as in Egypt and Libya — in direct violation of both U.S. and international law. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that intelligence officials in the Obama Administration are having the CIA and “black ops” units secretly arm Islamic groups because they know the public won’t support such moves.
“What they’re seeking … is to do this covertly, so that they never need to make a case to the American people and only a handful of people are involved,” he said. “I think it’s terrible policy.”
Obama’s scheme to secretly funnel advanced weapons to Islamic radicals throughout the Middle East is not due to some secret Muslim agenda he has hidden from us. Rather, it stems from his willingness, as an advocate of almost limitless government power, to give the CIA, the NSA and other secret intelligence agencies a blank check to do whatever they want … with zero oversight or public knowledge.
Now, it’s only fair to say that this is not the first time a U.S. president has been a party to secret wars. America’s top-secret intelligence forces have been overthrowing democratically elected governments … assassinating political leaders … and shipping arms and money to some of the most violent, cruel and murderous groups on earth … including sworn enemies of the United States … for decades. Because these illegal efforts of the Obama Administration to re-arm America’s enemies are already backfiring. Islamic “freedom fighters” have already shot and killed American personnel, including a U.S. ambassador
Aaron Klein of The Daily Caller says:
“One would be hard pressed to find a more significant impeachable offense than aiding and abetting the sworn enemies of the United States, especially when any such support includes sending weapons to our murderous adversaries. A crime on that scale would certainly be made all the more serious if those same enemies turned around and utilized the U.S.-provided arms to kill Americans.”
Judicial Watch calls the Obama Administration’s secret shipments of weapons to Islamic rebels …
“a story of political treachery in high places.”
And on September 17, the Washington Examiner reported that Obama had waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups … to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, including “radical Islamic terrorist groups … and Al-Qaeda.”
It could be terrifying. Under Obama, the Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled enough ammunition to kill every man, woman and child in the nation six times. It has armed itself with armored vehicles designed to attack civilians in the streets.

Sources—absolute rights, sam chapman, charles govette, freedom and prosperity, nyt, time, fox, cnn, tarek fatah, Toronto sun, john kerry, bob corker, aaron klein, daily caller, judicial watch, Washington examiner, glenn beck,

Pelosi drops brand-new whopper with VA blame:

(56JH) 5/28/14
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is blaming former President George W. Bush for the Veterans Administration scandal, but, according to the VA’s own numbers, she has the facts wrong.
Pelosi never mentioned Bush by name at a press briefing Thursday, but she left no doubt as to whom she was talking about. She referred to “the ramifications of some seeds that were sown a long time ago, when you have two wars over a long period of time and many, many more, millions more veterans.”
Pelosi then blamed the VA scandal on an increase in veterans due to recent wars. Ten years later, we have all of these additional veterans. In the past five years, two million more veterans needing benefits from the VA. That’s a huge, huge increase.”
Actually, according to government statistics, there are far fewer veterans in the VA. According to the VA, the number of vets declined by 4.3 million from 2000 to 2013. Democrats such as Pelosi claim more money is the solution. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, “If the VA does not have enough doctors to see these patients, then these problems are a result of a lack of funding.”
But spending on the VA actually tripled from 2010 to 2013. John Merline at Investor’s Business Daily crunched the numbers and found the VA’s budget has been exploding, even as the number of veterans steadily declines. Even more telling, wounded warriors coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are not increasing treatment costs.
Those vets are actually far cheaper to treat than aging vets. In fact, the costs of treating veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is almost half of what it cost to treat other vets. A Congressional Budget found that the younger vets cost $4,800, on average, in 2010 compared Office report with $8,800 for other veterans who used the system. It also found, while the Iraq and Afghan vets account for 7 percent of patients treated, they were responsible for only 4 percent of health costs.
Iraq and Afghan vets, the report found, “are typically younger and healthier than the average VHA patient and as a result are less expensive to treat.”
A problem that Democrats such as Pelosi face in trying to blame Bush for the scandal is Obama’s long history of declaring the VA needed fixing and claiming he was working on the problems. In a 2007 speech, then-Sen. Obama said: “Keeping faith with those who serve must always be a core American value and a cornerstone of American patriotism. Because America’s commitment to its servicemen and women begins at enlistment, and it must never end.” During his transition into the White House in 2008-09, Obama even proposed in his “Obama-Biden” plan to “make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible.”
Obama was also warned of severe problems at the VA repeatedly over the years, even before he became president. WND discovered that Obama was briefed on problems at the VA as far back as 2005, when he was a senator and a member of the Veterans Affairs committee.
The Washington Times reported Monday that the Obama administration received notice more than five years ago that VA medical facilities were reporting inaccurate waiting times and experiencing scheduling failures that threatened to deny veterans timely health care. VA officials reportedly warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the wait times the facilities were reporting were not trustworthy.
More recently, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., wrote a letter to Obama on May 21, 2013, that warned of “an alarming pattern of serious and significant patient care issues at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) across the country … (including) failures, deceptions, and lack of accountability permeating VA’s healthcare system. Miller concluded: “I believe your direct involvement and leadership is required.”
WND reported last week that Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., reminded VA Secretary Eric Shinseki that Congress had been informed two years ago that gaming the system at the VA was so widespread, employees would look to get around regulations as soon as the rules were implemented.
Pelosi even had the temerity to suggest Obamacare might be the key to fixing the VA scandal, stating, “We have the Affordable Care Act that is out there that is providing resources for more federally-qualified health clinics around the country.” Critics such as Rush Limbaugh have pointed out just the opposite, warning that the immense problems with government-run healthcare at the VA are a preview of such horrors as death panels under the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, John Fund wrote in National Review that the VA scandal was “a warning sign of what could happen as the pressure to ration, inherent in all government-managed health care, is applied to the general population.”
She implied it might be better to treat vets in private clinics rather than at VA facilities.
Many Republican critics have said recently that having the federal government provide vouchers to allow vets to see private doctors would be a humane way to get them help. Andy Harris, R-Md., who served as a physician at the prestigious Johns Hopkins Hospital and as a medical officer in the Naval Reserve, makes the case for health-care vouchers so vets can opt out of the VA health system, calling it “the real free-market solution for helping our veterans.”
SOURCES—garth kant, wnd, john mereline, investors business daily, cbo, Washington times, national review