Now it may be my cynical side, or something, but this sure smacks of obama trying to curry favor with the Israelis and the Jewish people in the USA.
Obama set to assure Israel that, if all else fails, US will attack Iran by June 2013 — TV report
Channel 10 says explicit US commitment, designed to ensure Israel holds its fire, could be issued at Obama-Netanyahu meet this fall
American and Israeli officials are working to arrange a meeting between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at which the White House will assure Israel that the US will use force to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons drive by next June at the latest if the Islamic Republic has not halted its program by then, Israel’s Channel 10 news reported on Tuesday night.
The meeting will take place in New York or Washington at the end of September or the very beginning of October, the report said. David Axelrod, senior strategist in Obama’s re-election campaign, is coordinating arrangements for the meeting, the report said.
The key formulation being discussed for Obama to assure Netanyahu is that the US “will attack Iran by June 2013? if the Iranian nuclear weapons drive has not halted by then, the report said.
Despite incessant reports from Israel asserting that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are strongly inclined toward ordering an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in September or October, the US administration tends not to believe that Israel would go ahead and attack Iran alone and in defiance of the US, the report said. Nonetheless, Washington is not certain of what Israel may do.
The White House is thus looking to reassure Israel and reduce the prime minister’s concern that, if Israel does not intervene militarily, nobody else will and the Iranians will get the bomb — a situation Netanyahu has made clear he considers untenable, since it would place the Jewish state under existential threat.
It would be unthinkable for Israel to strike at Iran before any such Obama-Netanyahu meeting, the report said, and similarly unthinkable afterwards — since Obama would provide the necessary reassurance for Israel to hold its fire.
Netanyahu is already tentatively scheduled to fly to the US at the end of September to address the UN General Assembly.
The report made no mention of whether any reassurance provided by Obama would be coordinated with Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney.
Read it all HERE.
This was from a speech yesterday by Obama and his socialist vision couldn’t be clearer:
What part of “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” did people not understand in 2008?
Also, go read Thomas Sowell’s latest article called The Paul Ryan Choice.
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.
The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.
The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.
The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.
A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.
One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.
“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.
“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.
The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.
“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.
“Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email.
The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.
Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.
The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.
Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.
Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, “It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”
The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.
The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.
The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.
In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on “enemy” strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.
Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.
A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.
That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.
It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.
Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.
(worrisome people! that a russian sub could just prowl around our waters and go undetected!@)
If you are not aware that Obama’s obscene $787 BILLION stimulus program now stands at $1.2 TRILLION and growing, please read that story here, but not before taking a look at the foreign companies receiving your tax money from the ever growing Obama Stimulus. Let your friends know the BILLIONS intended to stimulate the American economy, stimulated the rest of the world, and in the tsunami that resulted, thousands of Americans lost their jobs: A record of a President’s stimulus failure goes round the world:
AUSTRALIA: $162,000 for Melanoma Tumor Samples to be sent to the National Cancer Institute
CHINA: Outsourced jobs to China.
? $30 MILLION to an American LED manufacturer to open plants. It did, and half of the company’s employees are now located in China.
? $337 MILLION for an Arizona solar plant – the panels will be supplied by a Chinese solar panel manufacturer.
? GE cancelled a contract with an American manufacturer of parts for Wind Turbines, and then ordered from China. The company, ATI, offered to match the price from China. GE refused the order and the American company laid off 302 workers.
? GE has used Chinese-made Wind Towers over American Towers at Stimulus funded Shepherds Flat Wind Farm in Oregon.
? A solar power company received $5.4 MILLION in grant monies, then laid off America workers based on an increased reliance on imports from China.
? $51.6 MILLION in Obama Stimulus Grants to build factories in the US. Layoff of 180 US workers have been announce,
? and possibly another 1,600 by the end of 2012. $218 MILLION Stimulus grant for wind turbines for the US assembled in Denmark.
? $25 MILLION for the construction of a “Demonstration Scale Biorefinery.”
The need for significant Medicare reform is increasingly evident, even to policymakers long accustomed to avoiding this politically explosive topic. A host of commissions and expert groups, ranging from the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to the Heritage Foundation, have argued that the United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path. Medicare is at the center of our fiscal crunch, with outlays that have grown about twice as fast as the economy over the past decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Even if the substantial reductions in payments to health care providers included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are fully implemented and Congress allows the 27.4% reduction in physician payments required under current law to go through, Medicare spending will continue to grow at unsustainable rates. It is more likely that Congress will not enforce such large reductions in provider payments, making Medicare’s drain on the budget that much greater. With the retirement of 76 million Baby Boomers over the next two decades, the program will consume an ever increasing share of the federal budget unless policies are adopted to bend Medicare’s cost curve.
On December 15, 2011, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a Medicare reform proposal based on the concept of premium support. Under their proposal,
Medicare would be converted from a defined-benefit to a defined contribution program. Instead of guaranteeing to pay for services as they are rendered, as fee-for service Medicare does, the program would give beneficiaries a subsidy (“premium support”) to purchase coverage from one of multiple competing health plans. The motivation behind the approach is to give plans a clear incentive to provide necessary services in a cost-effective manner, which can result in lower premiums or other beneficiary costs, attracting enrollees and increasing the plan’s share of the market.
You didn’t build that! Someone else made that happen! These are the famous words of a Marxist Democrat running for president. Today, he doubled down on his Marxism by declaring that wealthy are simply ‘lucky’ and ‘fortunate.’ Not a word about how they worked hard to get to where they are, or how they accumulated their wealth. They were simply ‘lucky’ to be wealthy. He made his Marxist remarks at a campaign stop in Iowa. And Obama’s definition of ‘rich’ in this case is those making $250,000 and up.
“If you’re lucky enough, and fortunate enough, and been blessed enough to be in the other two percent, the top two percent, you still get a tax cuts for your first $250,000 of income,” Obama said during a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa. “All we’re saying is after that, maybe you can do a little bit more to help pay down this deficit and invest in things like education that help our economy grow.”
‘White’ on the Brain
Racial comity got Obama elected. He hopes racial division will get him reelected.
The election of the biracial Barack Obama was supposed to usher in a new era of racial harmony. Instead, that dream is becoming a tribally polarized nightmare — by design, and intended to assist in the reelection of Barack Obama.
Consider the increasing obsession with the term “white” (as in versus “black”), along with the old standby charge of “racism” — nearly all of it emanating from the president’s surrogates and celebrity supporters. Upon the announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, almost immediately Donna Christensen, the non-voting congressional delegate from the Virgin Islands, tweeted: “Wait a minute! Are there black people in Va? Guess just not w Romney Ryan! At least not seeing us. We know who’s got our back & we have his.”
“Got our back” — compare the Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith’s video appealing to African-Americans to cover the president’s back — of course implies that Paul Ryan is a veritable racist who by virtue of his skin color and conservative politics will stab blacks in the back. In that vein, Mia Farrow, viewing the initial Romney/Ryan rally, offers, “Camera pans crowd: whole bunch of white people.”
Read it all HERE.
The Media’s War on Business – and Science – Gets Personal
For several years the hysterical, ratings-seeking media has waged a war on businesses that use bisphenol A (also known as BPA), a chemical found in water bottles, canned foods and even thermal cash-register tape. The media has succeeded in ignoring the science and instead stoked the public’s irrational fears by simply proving that traces of BPA can be found in your food. However, numerous studies by the FDA, CDC, World Health Organization, and European Food Safety Authority have found that BPA is easily and quickly metabolized, with no discernible human harm ever being identified.
With feigned outrage, the hysterical media points out that many studies on the safety of BPA are funded by companies who benefit from its production. But how would the media react if companies didn’t conduct studies on the safety of their products? Like their cohorts on the Left, the media is committed to painting businesses as evil and greedy. One researcher from the University of Missouri smugly told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “They are simply protecting their product.”
Let’s assume greed is the motivator. Sure, a business could make a quick buck from an unsafe product before the FDA steps in, but they could make even more from a safe product they could sell for decades that also protects consumers from diseases like botulism and salmonella contamination, as BPA does. The profit-from-safe-products route also ensures they won’t be getting sued by consumers and fined by regulators.
What is the FDA’s motivation when it identifies BPA as safe? In 2010 in its second report affirming the safety of BPA, the agency’s Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, M.D. said, “The FDA is not saying that it’s unsafe to use a baby bottle with BPA. …FDA does support the use of bottles with BPA because the benefit of nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA. …If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action.”
When faced with an independent report that didn’t support their grandstanding against the BPA industry, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel put a spin on the FDA’s latest report saying it was an “about face” even though the second report simply affirmed the first.
Read more HERE.
This stemmed from George W. Bush’s use of the terms “Islamic fascists” and “Islamofascism” that threw the left and CAIR into a tizzy.
Defining the Threat We Face — Congressman Paul Ryan (October 7, 2006)
A debate has been raging about what to call our enemy – the terrorists and radical Muslim leaders who have committed themselves to bringing death and destruction to America, Israel, and allied democracies. President Bush has used the term “Islamic fascists” to describe the threat we face, while Senator Feingold argues that phrase is offensive and misleading. While I respect Russ and consider him a friend, I strongly disagree with his premise.
Words matter, especially when defining the multifaceted enemy that extends beyond national boundaries and operates as a network of jihadists waging war on the West. If we can’t even define what we are fighting against, how are we ever going to win? For this reason, we must strive to use the most accurate term – not necessarily the most politically correct one.
“Islamic fascism” expresses the essence of the violent, extremist, religion-driven movement that confronts us. Both words apply, but they must be used together in order to convey the proper meaning and make the crucial distinction between peaceful Muslims and the murderous extremists of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and similar groups that distort Islam and seek to dominate or destroy those who disagree with them.
Although the term “fascist” has often been misused, carelessly or consciously, the traditional understanding of fascism as exemplified by Mussolini’s Italy, Nazi Germany, and Franco’s Spain is a governing philosophy that is totalitarian, imperialistic, and militaristic. Fascism rejects the governing system and modern society, is hierarchical, and pursues the subordination of the individual. It’s also fueled by racism, anti-Semitism, and resentment kindled by defeats or perceived loss of power.
Stephen Morris, a fellow at JohnsHopkinsUniversity’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, has written that fascism “refers to a revolutionary political mass movement or regime that aims to achieve national greatness by radically transforming political and social life with totalitarian rule and by a policy of imperial expansion. Fascist ideology is reactionary in that it aspires to re-create a mythical past.”
To give you an idea how much of an Obama hack Soledad O’Brien is, she was caught earlier in the day using a print out of lefty blog Talking Points Memo during a debate on Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan.
Via Fox Nation
What a petty, little man.
Via Daily Caller:
President Barack Obama is beating Gov. Mitt Romney on the so-called “beer test” of likeability, but the president doesn’t want to have beer with Republicans.
A revealing moment came Monday, when Obama told a tent of drinkers at the Iowa State Fair that he’d buy a round of beers for 10 people, but not for one person carrying a sign of support for Gov. Mitt Romney.
At the beer tent, the drinkers “started chanting, ‘four more beers!’” according to the pool report.
“Potus said, ‘I’ll tell you what, except for Romney sign, I’ll buy beers for ten people,’” the report added.
Obama also refused to eat pork cops until he asked for a knife and fork.
Top 10 Reasons Not To Re-elect Obama (Part 1 of 3)
By Chuck Norris
On Feb. 2, 2009, President Barack Obama explained his chance to fix the economy to host Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today”: “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years. … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
Here are the top 10 reasons I believe President Obama shouldn’t sit a single day beyond his one term in the Oval Office:
10) Obama’s economic actions have failed to lower the unemployment rate in the U.S. to less than 8 percent for the past 42 months, which is a record.
Nearly four years into his presidency, Obama’s economic progress was reported on Aug. 3 by Reuters: “Details of the household survey, from which the unemployment rate is drawn, gave a downbeat assessment of the labor market, with the share of the population that has a job falling to near cycle lows. In addition, the labor force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.7 percent last month from 63.8 percent. That is a sign of low confidence in the labor market. Data last week showed the economy grew at an annual pace of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, also far short of the 2.5 percent rate needed to keep the unemployment rate stable.”
9) The Obama administration’s out-of-control spending has led America to the economic brink and destroyed our country’s credit rating.
In 2009, Obama spoke out of one side of his mouth when giving financial advice to the people in New Hampshire: “When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash (in) Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”
But he then spoke out of the other side of his mouth when he informed the American public that he was proposing a record-breaking $3.8 trillion budget for 2011, which equates to spending $7.3 million a minute. (The federal budget was only $1.9 trillion in 2001.)
Tragically, the president expects Americans to live one way financially (fiscally prudently) and the federal government to live another (extravagantly wildly). Not so surprisingly, the day after the president proposed his 2011 budget, Moody’s Investors Service announced that his fiscal policies “test the AAA boundaries” and pushed the U.S. government’s credit rating below those of Canada, Germany and even France.
Finish reading HERE.