Thursday, July 31, 2014

Arab Leaders Give Hamas Silent Treatment



While Israel is being chastised by many in the international community for their defensive war against Hamas terrorists, there is an unusual deafening silence emanating from the Arab world.  This silence can be construed as a major defeat for Hamas in particular and for Turkey and Qatar in general.

In years past, every time Hamas had attacked Israel, the Arab world had always publicly backed Hamas and denounced Israel.  Fast forward to 2014…Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt have given tacit support to Israel’s military campaign against Hamas.  Unfortunately, Turkey’s current Islamist government led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo─čan and the Qatari’s still support Hamas in their terrorist activities.

This tacit approval given to Israel by Arab countries has to be on the minds of the Hezbollah terrorist leadership as well.  In 2006, much of the Arab world considered Hezbollah a legitimate resistance movement, but things have changed dramatically over the last 8 years.  Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s military support of Syrian President Assad has created a backlash from the Arab world.  It has been reported that Hezbollah had considered joining the fight against Israel in an effort to take some of the heat off of Hamas, but I think that is unlikely at this point.

In past conflicts between Israel and Hamas, Arab leaders would always pressure the American president to persuade Israel to stop their military activities.  Today, we have an American president and Secretary of State demanding that Israel halt their military advance, while Arab leaders stay silent on the sidelines.  In an odd twist, Egyptian President Sisi has become more of an ally to Israel than Barack Obama has been. 

Israel’s Channel 1 has published an alleged leaked phone transcript between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.  In the transcript, Obama is demanding that Bibi unilaterally halt all military activities in the Gaza Strip.  Both the US and Israeli governments deny the authenticity of the leaked transcript, but both governments have their reasons for denying such an exchange.  Channel 1 stands by their story and says their award winning journalist received the leak from a senior American government official. 

The following is an English translation of the Hebrew account of the talk given in the report:

Barack Obama: I demand that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities, in particular airstrikes.

Benjamin Netanyahu: And what will Israel receive in exchange for a ceasefire?

BO: I believe that Hamas will cease its rocket fire — silence will be met with silence.

BN: Hamas broke all five previous ceasefires. It’s a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

BO: I repeat and expect Israel to stop all its military activities unilaterally. The pictures of destruction in Gaza distance the world from Israel’s position.

BN: Kerry’s proposal was completely unrealistic and gives Hamas military and diplomatic advantages.

BO: Within a week of the end of Israel’s military activities, Qatar and Turkey will begin negotiations with Hamas based on the 2012 understandings, including Israel’s commitment to removing the siege restrictions on Gaza.

BN: Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It’s impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.

BO: I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators.

BN: I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks –

BO: (interrupting Netanyahu) The ball’s in Israel’s court, and it must end all its military activities.     


Many leaders in the Arab world see Hamas as a destructive force in an already hostile region and their tacit support for Israel’s military campaign is a victory.  It may be a quiet victory, but it’s a victory nonetheless.  Do I think the Muslim sheiks and kings of the Middle East will join hands with the Israelis and sing Kumbaya?  Absolutely not, but the behind the scenes support of Arab leaders can change the equation on any future conflicts between Israel and Hamas or even Israel and Hezbollah.  If we can just get Barack Obama and John Kerry on board, then Hamas might realize the folly of their continued missile attacks on Israeli citizens.                

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Obama Blames Chuck Hagel For Bergdahl Trade


The Obama White House has come out and blamed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel for the flawed Taliban prisoner swap.  Obama staffers told members of congress that the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl trade was made by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.  'They (Obama staffers) indicated (it was) Secretary Hagel (who made the final call),' Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) told ABC News after a classified briefing.

It has been reported the Obama administration was taken a back by the criticism it received from all corners of the political spectrum.  They expected to congratulated and had hoped the celebratory news would bury the ongoing VA scandal from the headlines.  The prisoner swap did indeed replace the VA coverage, but not in the way they were expecting.

Speaking on MSNBC in early June, NBC reporter Chuck Todd stated that the White House had expected “some euphoria around this… that there would be a rally around the flag.” Clearly, they were wrong.  Team Obama has tried to defend the president's decision to swap an Army deserter for 5 high level war criminals, without much success.  Now Obama is doing what Obama does best....blame someone else for his own failures.

Back during the Bin Laden raid, the Obama White House had a backup plan if the raid had failed and they had drafted a ‘highly lawyered’ memo to protect President Obama from potential backlash.  In May of 2012, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Sean Hannity that then Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta drafted a note that would have put the blame instead on Navy Admiral William McRaven.  At the time of the Bin Laden raid, Adm. McRavin was commander of Joint Special Operations Command.

I'm surprised President Obama hasn't convened a Rose Garden presser and claimed that that he didn't know anything about the prisoner swap until he heard about it on the news.  That is the classic Obama move.  He refuses to accept responsibility for any of his failings.  He always finds out about one scandal or another by watching the news.  Obama did convene a press conference in the Rose Garden with the Bergdahl parents when he thought he would look like a liberator, but now that he is being criticized, it's someone else's fault.

It is like we have a petulant 6th grader as the leader of our country.  2016 can't get here fast enough!        

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Was Bergdahl Worth the Price?


The Obama regime expected to be praised when they secured the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and they have been taken aback by the criticism. I have read some stories that indicated the White House thought Bergdahl would be greeted like the Iranian held hostages were greeted when they returned from 444 days of captivity. I’m sure they expected another ‘Bin Laden’ moment and hoped it would bury the many Obama scandals from the headlines.

There have been whispers over the years that Bergdahl deserted his comrades voluntarily and now those accusations are being openly discussed. At least 6 warriors (maybe 14) lost their lives in search for a soldier that may have turned his back on his country and his brothers in arms. The elder Bergdahl hasn’t helped his son’s image much either. He has tweeted his support for the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and he has kept in constant contact with a Taliban member over the years.

Should we condemn a father for doing all he can to win the release of his son? Of course not, but there were probably better ways of going about it. It is almost as if the father suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, even though he wasn’t the hostage per se. The United States should have attempted to gain the release of Bergdahl, but we shouldn’t have paid the price the Taliban demanded.

Obama exchanged a possible army deserter for 5 high level war criminals. These terrorists have blood on their hands and they will no doubt inflict more deaths in the future. The Obama regime has said they will keep an eye on the five terrorists to make sure they don’t resort to their terrorist ways. Really? The same way they kept an eye on the thousands of weapons they shipped to the narco-terrorists in Mexico? The Fast & Furious results don’t give me much confidence in this White House.

The question also arises about the law Obama apparently broke to secure the release of Bowe. Legal analysts on both sides of the issue have chimed in. Some say Obama clearly broke the law; others say he didn’t break the law. Congressional hearings will no doubt be conducted, however, I’m certain there will be no legal ramifications even if Obama did break the law. 


The Obama White House has defended its decision to violate The National Defense Authorization Act by saying Bowe Hergdahl’s life was in immediate danger and they didn’t have 30 days to notify congress. I take issue with that Bravo Sierra. I dug up multiple stories from April 24, 2014 which reported that Bergdahl's captors were anxious to release him. This was disclosed to the Associated Press by a defense official and a military officer on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

"Elements in all echelons — from the top of the Taliban down to the folks holding Bergdahl — are reaching out to make a deal," the defense told the Associated Press. The military officer said those (Taliban) holding Bergdahl had indicated what they would be willing to do to prove to the U.S. government that they want to deal. It sounds like the US had the upper hand in negotiations and knew a release could be imminent.

So why didn’t the Obama administration notify congress of an impending deal and why did Obama pay such a high price for Bergdahl when it appeared we had the upper hand in negotiations? Everything this president does is half assed…unless of course it’s related to the radical transformation of our country. He’s pretty good at that.


There are also legitimate concerns that Obama has now established the going price for any future American hostage. Terrorists now know that if they can grab an American soldier or citizen, they can get five terrorist brothers in exchange. The Obama hostage exchange puts all Americans at risk of abduction and he has given the Taliban a huge victory.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice justified the prisoner exchange by saying Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction." That “honor and distinction” debate is just beginning and there will be many soldiers (and family members of slain soldiers) that will contest Ms. Rice’s description. The Obama regime would be better served if Ms. Rice refrained from commenting because her credibility leaves a lot to be desired. Benghazi pretty much ruined any credibility she might have had.

Let the debate continue~



Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

John F. Kerry: "What's the worst that can happen" if we're wrong about global warming?


Secretary of State John Kerry made an idiotic statement while addressing 'climate change' at Boston College recently.  I realize it's not breaking news when Mr. Kerry says something stupid, (because it happens all too often), but his latest moronic comment takes the cake.

The windsurfing Secretary of State apparently strayed off script when he said, "If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen"? 
  
What's the worse that can happen?  Are you freaking serious Mr. Kerry?  The United States has wasted at least $72 billion (I surmise it's much higher) since 2008 in an effort to prevent man-made global warming. Of course that's not counting the destructive and costly (think billion$) regulations that have been imposed on the private sector by this government.

According to one study, the world as a whole spends about $1 billion a day ($359 billion in 2012) on renewable energy and global warming mitigation measures.  Do you realize how many starving Earth inhabitants can be fed with one third of a trillion dollars every year?  

'Green' regulations have killed jobs, harmed the economy, and have increased the price of energy for all of us.  Energy prices are projected to go much higher in the years to come because of Obama's war on coal. The Obama EPA is forcing the closure of coal fired plants all across the country and those shutdowns will be responsible for a 150% price hike for natural gas, accompanied by an additional 7% rise in electricity rates.  
According to one study, the world as a whole spends about $1 billion a day ($359 billion in 2012) on renewable energy and global warming mitigation measures.  Do you realize how many poor starving people can be fed with one third of a trillion dollars every year?

There are those that argue that 'green' jobs are being created to replace those that are lost.  But at what cost?  During the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama promised that he would spend $150 billion in taxpayers money over the next decade to create 5 million new green jobs.  Those 5 million jobs will cost the taxpayers $30,000 for each job created.

Those are modest calculations compared to some leftist organizations estimates.  The Center for American Progress estimated that federal outlays of $100 billion over a two year period would create two million green jobs, costing the taxpayers approximately $50,000 per job.  Another leftist organization (the Apollo Alliance) estimates it would take half a trillion dollars to create five million green jobs, costing taxpayers $100K per job.

What's the worse that can happen Mr. Kerry is that the United States will waste trillions of taxpayers dollars over the course of a few decades to combat something that doesn't exist.  Man-Made Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Chaos is a hoax perpetrated by global leftists.  One global leftist (French FM Laurent Fabius) says we only have 500 days left to avoid climate chaos, even though we haven't had a global warming trend in almost 18 years.

According to RSS satellite data, the global warming trend in the last 17 years, 9 months (since August 1996) is zero.  ZERO!  The 212 months without global warming represents more than half of the 423 month satellite data record, which began in January 1979.    



Not only have we NOT experienced global warming (man-made or otherwise) for almost 20 years, tornadic activity and hurricanes are at record lows.  NOAA has stated that 2013-2014 was one of the coldest on record for most of the country, yet we spend billions to prevent something that isn't occurring.

We have idiots running our country and they will waste billions/trillions of taxpayers dollars and destroy the economy in order to advance a HOAX.  But hey, what's the worst that can happen?      


Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Dept. of Agriculture Requests Submachine Guns with 30rd Capacity



UPDATE****May 16, 2014

A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks "the commercial acquisition of ballistic vests, compliant with NIJ 0101.06 for Level IIIA Ballistic Resistance of body armor." HERE


May 15, 2014
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a solicitation on May 7, 2014 that asks for "the commercial acquisition of submachine guns."  The desired weapons for the Dept. of Agriculture should include the following specs:
     
40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot bursts trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight  (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsible or folding, magazine - 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.

Why does the USDA need such a weapon?  To answer that question I went to the USDA website to look for an answer.  The mission statement of the USDA states: "We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management."

Does it say anywhere in that mission statement about the need to have submachine guns?  No?  Let's take a look at their vision statement for some clues.  The USDA vision statement reads as follows:  "To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation's natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands."

Does the USDA need submachine guns with night-scopes and 30 round magazines to expand economic opportunities?  Do they need the weapons to help rural America to thrive? Maybe they need the military grade weapons to help preserve and conserve our natural resources.

For even more clues, let’s take a look at the USDA's 'Strategic Plan Framework.' "USDA has created a strategic plan to implement its vision.  The framework of this plan depends on these key activities: expanding markets for agricultural products and support international economic development, further developing alternative markets for agricultural products and activities, providing financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural America, enhancing food safety by taking steps to reduce the prevalence of food borne hazards from farm to table, improving nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion, and managing and protecting America’s public and private lands working cooperatively with other levels of government and the private sector.

The last part of that framework tells us what we need to know.  "Managing and protecting America's public and private lands" may indeed require the use of .40 cal submachine guns by USDA agents.  As we saw in Clark County Utah, heavily armed government agents (Bureau of Land Management) were needed to protect public and private lands from a lone cattle rancher. 

Heavily armed government agencies are becoming the norm in today's America.  We learned in 2011 that the U.S. Department of Education can in fact invade your home and hold you at gunpoint.  A man named Kenneth Wright learned this the hard way. Armed federal agents (Dept. of Education) busted down Mr. Wright's door of his California home at six in the morning and held him and his family at gunpoint.

What was Mr. Wright's crime?  The Dept. of Education was investigating his estranged wife's use of federal aid dollars for students...even though she didn't live at the house at the time.  The Dept. of Education and the USDA aren't the only federal agencies that are furnished with SWAT teams and heavily armed agents.

40 federal agencies, which includes at least a dozen agencies not associated with law enforcement, have armed divisions.  As of June 2012, there were 120,000 full-time government agents that were authorized to carry weapons and make arrests.  The Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, the Parks Service are among 24 federal agencies that employ well over 250 armed officers with arrest authority.

The other 16 federal agencies that have less than 250 armed officers include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Library of Congress, the Federal Reserve Board and the National Institute of Health.  As an interesting side-note, the EPA's charter says in part that its mission is to 'protect' the environment and the public.  Sound familiar?

The increasing militarization of local police departments and government agencies should be a wakeup call to the citizens of this country.  The purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of various ammunition by the Dept. of Homeland Security for its many sub-agencies should be a wakeup call as well.  

The armed standoff between the BLM and a cattle rancher in Utah is not the first to involve armed federal agents and a private citizen and it won't be the last.  The Bureau of Land Management has said it wants to seize 90,000 acres of land from Texas and I surmise armed citizens from all over the country will descend to Texas in order to greet the armed BLM agents.    

I wouldn't be surprised if we see armed agents from the Department of Agriculture (brandishing new submachine guns equipped with 30 round magazines) in Texas to help BLM agents 'manage and protect' America's public and private lands.   

        
UPDATE******
USDA Orders Ballistic Body Armor.

A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks "the commercial acquisition of ballistic vests, compliant with NIJ 0101.06 for Level IIIA Ballistic Resistance of body armor."


STORY HERE

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Obama Administration Gives $47M to Communist Chinese-Backed 'Green' Energy Company


According to The Washington Times, the Obama administration has awarded a Communist Chinese company $47 million in taxpayer dollars for a wind-farm in New Jersey.  New Jersey officials have rejected the wind-farm project twice, saying it was too risky for ratepayers. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities concluded last month that the Chinese company did not demonstrate financial integrity.

The lack of financial integrity has never stopped Obama from handing out our tax dollars with impunity before. Barack Obama has invested and lost billions in taxpayer dollars in the promotion of green energy companies. The Brookings Institution estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives in the near future.


As of 2012 there were 23 green energy companies that went bankrupt after receiving taxpayer money and 27 more were on the brink of going bankrupt. Greencorruption.blogspot.com published a detailed list of the green energy companies that have gone bankrupt after receiving taxpayer dollars.  

The list as of 2012:

BANKRUPT

  1. Solyndra*: Received $535 million DOE loan and $25.1 million in California tax credit. Bankrupt:September 2011
  2. Abound Solar*Received part of a $60 million grant under the Bush administration, and was awarded a $400 million loan under Obama in December of 2010. Abound was awarded a $9.2-million loan from the Export-Import Bank in July 2011. Bankrupt: June 2012
  3. Beacon Power*Received more than $25 million in DOE grants and a DOE loan for $43 million. Bankrupt: October 2011 

  4. A123 Systems*: Received $390 million, of which $249 million of it was a Recovery Act GrantFiled for Bankruptcy October 16, 2012, and two companies are seeking to buy A123; Johnson Controls and the Chinese firm Wanxiang Group Corp.
  5. Amonix*: Received $6 million in federal tax credits a $15.6 million grant from the DOE for research and development. Bankrupt: July 18, 2012 
  6. Azure Dynamics*: Received millions in stimulus funds and over $1.7 million in Michigan state tax credits. Bankrupt: March 27, 2012 ––  HF ADDITION: states $120 million 
  7. Babcock & Brown: Received $178 million in the largest federal (1603) stimulus wind grant in December 2009. Placed into voluntary liquidation: March 13, 2009
  8. Energy Conversion Devices Inc./Uni-Solar: Received a $13.3 million Stimulus tax credit. Bankrupt:February 2011.
  9. Ener1*: Received a $118.5 million DOE Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: January 26, 2011.
  10. Evergreen Solar, Inc.*: Received Stimulus funds, grants, tax-credits, low-interest loans and subsidies. Bankrupt: August 15, 2011 
  11. Konarka Technologies Inc.: Received $20 million in grants from government agencies such as the DOE and the Pentagon. Bankrupt: June 4, 2012.
  12. ADDITION Range Fuels*Range Fuels: $162.25 million in government commitments since 2007, of which $64 million came from a USDA Biofuel loan in 2010 alone, despite financial and technical difficulties, and opposition inside the USDA. 
  13. Raser Technologies: Received $33 million Treasury Department Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: May 2, 2011. 
  14. SpectraWatt*: Received $500,000 grant from the Renewable Energy Lab via the Stimulus. Bankrupt:August 23, 2011
  15. Stirling Energy Systems: Received $7 million from a federal renewable-energy grant and was eligible for nearly $10.5 million in manufacturing September 28, 2011
  16. Thompson River Power LLC: Received $6.5 million in Stimulus funds from Section 1603. Bankrupt:July 2, 2012.
  17. HF ADDITION: Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)in our unconfirmed list
  18. HF ADDITION: Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million); in ourunconfirmed list
  19. HF ADDITION: Nordic Windpower* ($16 million)
  20. HF ADDITION: Satcon ($3 million) As reported by the Heritage Foundation October 18, 2012, "A solar company that got a multi-million-dollar grant from the Department of Energy earlier this year announced Wednesday that it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the second taxpayer-backed green energy company to file for bankruptcy this week." 
  21. HF ADDITION: Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981) ($6 million)in our unconfirmed bankrupt list 
  22. ADDITION, October 23, 2012: Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Co.: Received $480,000 through the Section 48C Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit Program. During Obama's visit to Cardinal Fastener, he took a "green Recovery Act victory lap," and touted it as means for "Made-In-America Jobs" for Ohio. Yet, just two weeks after the Obama visit, Cardinal laid off 12 percent of its staff, and in June 2011, Cardinal Fastener filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Lastly, in January 2012, Cardinal Fastener was acquired by Germany’s Wurth Group for just $3.9 Million.
  23. HF ADDITION, December 1, 2012: ReVolt Technology is a Portland-based company, which specialized in developing zinc-air flow battery systems. "ReVolt earned its place in the Graveyard when it declared bankruptcy (October 17, 2012), despite the fact it had been offered a whopping $10 million in funds from federal, state, and local governments. The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy offered a $5 million grant in 2010. Oregon matched the federal government’s promise with $5 million worth of loans." 


At a time when we are shrinking our military to pre-WW II levels, President Obama continues to waste our precious tax dollars on failed green energy companies. President Obama is hell-bent on his crusade to replace fossil fuels for green energy alternatives and he doesn't care how much taxpayer money he wastes in the process.     





Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Government Snipers Keep Watchful Eye on Nevada Family For Violating 'First Amendment Area'



Bureau of Land Management snipers trained their scoped rifles on members of a Nevada family on Monday after the family members had the audacity to stop and take video footage of family owned cattle outside the bounds of a federal government designated “First Amendment Area.”  Dave Bundy was apparently arrested for non-compliance of a federal order.

From the Maopa Valley Progress newspaper...."According to Dave’s brother, Ryan Bundy, several members of the family had gone out for a drive in several vehicles to try to monitor the ongoing federal action to remove their father’s cattle from the range. They were not traveling on recently restricted federal land, but were traveling along the state highway looking north across the valley for signs of cattle, Ryan Bundy said."

According to the MV Progress, "the cattle roundup is part of a dispute that has been going on for more than 20 years. Bundy has insisted that he does not need to recognize federal government jurisdiction on land that his family has used, improved and ranched since the late 1800s."

I'm not sure who (Bundy family or Feds) has the law on their side in regards to the land dispute, but arresting his son simply for taking pictures from the highway is an abuse of power by the federal government. This is the kind of abuse of power that can lead to violent confrontations between federal authorities and the citizens.  

'Free Speech' zones are also Bravo Sierra. We are seeing more and more of the government telling us where we can and can't exercise our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the government cannot abridge the freedom of speech or interfere with the right to peaceably assemble. It says nothing about 'free speech zones.'



Sphere: Related Content