News out of Switzerland today has US President Obama claiming a deal with Iran as a victory for his Administration. Below is a photo of the two leaders celebrating.
According to the Deal, Iran gives up basically nothing. The US in return unfreezes $7 Billion in Iranian funds.
Keep in mind that it is not the US that made Iran a dangerous State. A recognized and internationally sanctioned State Sponsor of Terrorism. We now have a President who not only green-lights running guns to drug gangs in Mexico, but is now the World's number one Iran Sanctions violator.
For that, President Obama is our Idiot politician of the Day. Not that he isn't every day....
Back in March (ObamaCare - If a Corporation Did This, People Would Go To Jail) I noted that if private corporations did what the Government was doing with Obamacare, that the Government would go after them for criminal activity. The basis of my argument was the dodgy financial justification the Democrats made for passage of Obamacare in that it would save the country and citizens billions of dollars. In reality, the savings were always an illusion at the real expenses were hidden in the years after the Government's ten year accounting review. Corporations however are not permitted such accounting gimmickry.
Now that the HealthCare.Gov website is proven to be even more of a disaster than expected and given the millions of health insurance cancellation notices that Americans are receiving, others are making the connection that President Obama's Democrat Administration is openly behaving in a way that would result in criminal prosecutions had they acted this way as a private business.
President Obama’s oft-repeated falsehood, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — something the administration knew was untrue — would almost certainly be a textbook case of deceptive advertising, punishable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practice in or affecting commerce.” This includes a “representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer,” such that the consumer would be “likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.” - Andrew Stiles, National Review
The article also notes that the HealthCare.Gov website provides in many cases very inaccurate insurance cost estimates, by design. Go read the whole article. Also read my initial post on this subject which covers the financial lies that were used to pass Obamacare in the first place. All of this should be remembered when the next election comes around.
News is getting out not only that millions of Americans with personal health insurance plans are going to lose their plans, but also that the Obama Administration and the President himself knew that this was going to happen. First, a reminder of how the President repeatedly told this lie:
Here is NBC News reporting that President Obama's Administration knew that the "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a lie.
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. - NBC News
Keep in mind that the Regulations issued by the Obama Administration are written to disqualify as many existing plans as possible, doing their best to undue the grandfather clause that was put into the law.
Slowly the facts are coming out about what happened during the Sept 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. This attacks were initially blamed on some video that muslims rioted over because they were told by their peers that the video insulted Mohammad.
In reality, proof is coming out that the Government knew from the start that the attack on the US Consulate was a terrorist attack and not some video protest that turned tragically violent. Take a look at the following timeline, keeping in mind that right from the start, they knew this was a terrorist attack (See the full timeline here which includes numerous other instances where the video was blamed):
11 Sept
During the day - Protests in Egypt over the Mohammad video
In the evening - Attack on US Consultate - Ambassador killed
Later that evening - Attack on CIA Safe House - Two Americans killed
Hilary Clinton blames video for violence
16 Sept
Susan Rice Makes TV show rounds and blames the video
25 Sept
Obama makes his speech at the UN
President Obama, surely knowing that this was a terrorist attack, still pushed the video lie in his speech to the United Nations.
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. - Link
President Obama's entire UN speech reinforces the lie created by Hilary Clinton and his State Department, that the deaths of 3 Americans were the result of some video that nobody saw. His UN speech only mentions terrorists once, and that is in reference to Iran. Instead, he refers to the terrorist attack on the US Consulate as some mere violent religious outrage. The President was right in that there was no video that justified an attack on a US Embassy. However, terrorists do not have to justify their actions.
Now the President's UN speech might not matter just yet, but once Congress hears evidence from Administration officials who have direct knowledge of what actually happened, everything the President, Secretary of State Clinton and other Administration officials said about this attack will become an issue. Even more so if it turns out that lies were made to protect Obama's reelection. At the very least, Obama's speech was a full two weeks after the attack. All of the relevant Administration officials would have been aware of the facts or will have been told a lie agreed upon by others high up in the Government.
This growing scandal might even bring down the Obama Administration. Even better if it ends Hilary's 2016 run for the White House. As it stands, both persons were very likely fully knowledgeable of both the facts and the lies put forward.
As noted before, (Canada Shipping Oil to US By Rail To Get Around Obama's Keystone XL Blockade) crude oil from Canada is going to come to the US, whether the Keystone XL pipeline get built or not. The failure of the Obama Administration to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline has been a boon to the railroads who are shipping ever greater amounts of crude oil to the US. Unfortunately, rail transport is not as efficient or safe as rail when transporting liquids.
So, it comes as no surprise to me that one of these trains has derailed, spilling oil.
A mile-long train hauling oil from Canada derailed, spilling 30,000 gallons of crude in western Minnesota on Wednesday, as debate rages over the environmental risks of transporting tar sands across the border.
The major spill, the first since the start of a boom in North American crude-by-rail transport three years ago, came when 14 cars on a 94-car Canadian Pacific train left the tracks about 150 miles northwest of Minneapolis near the town of Parkers Prairie, the Otter Tail Sheriff's Department said. - Daily Mail, UK
It is going to happen again. Surely many other transportation professionals will agree. Such large quantities of crude oil should be moved by pipeline.
'It is good business for the rails and bad safety for the public,' said Jim Hall, a transportation consultant and former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
'Railroads travel through population centers. The safest form of transport for this type of product is a pipeline. This accident could - and ought to - raise the issue for discussion.' - Daily Mail, UK
It is interesting to note that Democrats are calling for new gun laws but at the same time they are refusing to enforce existing gun laws. Take the national background check for purchasing a firearm. Thousands of people who are not allowed to purchase a firearm are stopped each year during the background check process. Many of these people caught lying on their applications in an attempt to illegally purchase a firearm. Almost none of these cases are prosecuted. This was highlighted in a recent post. Even the (mostly) distasteful Mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, finds this a truly inexcusable act of neglegence o behalf of the Government.
Some, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are also pressing the Justice Department (DOJ) to get more aggressive in going after those convicted of trying to buy firearms by filing fraudulent background information. Citing 2009 figures, Bloomberg hammered the DOJ recently for prosecuting only 77 of 71,000 cases where people were found to have lied on their background checks.
"These are gun criminals trying to buy guns illegally – and the federal government is just letting them walk," Bloomberg said during a speech in December. - The Hill
The Sandy Hook shooter tried to buy a gun a couple days before his attack. How many other dangerous people have tried and simply been turned away with no follow-up by the Federal Government? Do we have to wait until they too start shooting people?
This kind of inaction is nothing new. Under President Clinton, there were complaints that his Administration was not serious in going after gun criminals. Worse, the then Administration actually hailed the law as working simply because they stopped and turned away criminal gun purchases. This would be like catching a bank robber, taking the money that he stole and then sending him on his way and calling it a success. this is sheer insanity.
President Clinton, Al Gore and their Congressional anti-gun allies continue to hold up the Brady Act as an effective crime-fighting tool, but they can`t explain why the 500,000 felons, drug dealers, stalkers and fugitives who walked into federally licensed dealers to purchase guns illegally were simply turned away. They committed multiple federal felonies, crimes punishable with 10-year prison terms. But these felons, drug dealers, stalkers and fugitives were not arrested. They were not prosecuted. They didn`t go to prison, and no community was made safer. - NRA ILA (17 October 2000!)
How many other crimes did these half million criminals who were left on the streets commit during the time that they could have been behind bars. How many people did they kill as a result of failure of the Government to put them in jail? I am going to make a guess that it was more than one. As our current Vice President notes, action should be taken if it can save even just one life. So how about enforcing our existing laws. That should save many more than one life...
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill. - The Weekly Standard
Well Mr. Vice President, how about pushing for the Brady Bill to be enforced...
Federal Prosecutions of Criminal Use of Guns FY 1992-1998
You know that this is bad when even the NRA is complaining that the Government needs to do more to put gun criminals behind bars....
As I have said before, Democrats want gun criminals on the streets. Otherwise they loose a campaign issue. Gun crime victims mean little to Democrats other than votes on election day. If they really cared about the people they would push for putting gun criminals behind bars.
In an earlier post I covered Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's proposal/demand that Congress simply eliminate the debt limit.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. “absolutely” should get rid of the debt ceiling as soon as possible.
“It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it,” Geithner told Bloomberg TV on Friday. “The sooner the better.” - HuffPo (Found at Hot Air)
As
it turns out, this is the demand that was made today to the Republican
members of Congress as part of the fiscal cliff solution talks.
House
Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F.
Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed
proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax
increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending,
home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. - NY Times
The 'deal' includes no cuts to Government spending. Only a suggestion to discuss cuts sometime next year. The offer is so ridiculous that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell burst into laughter. Unfortunately, this meeting confirms my belief that the Democrats have no intention of dealing with the Nation's debt problem.
Geithner’s
visit to his office left McConnell discouraged about reaching a
“balanced” deal on tax hikes and spending reductions designed to prevent
a shock to the economy in January. “Nothing good is happening” in the
negotiations, McConnell says, because of Obama’s insistence on tax rate
hikes for the wealthy but unwillingness to embrace serious spending
cuts. - Weekly Standard
So
there you have it, Obama and the Democrats are unwilling to commit to
any real spending cuts, outside of cutting spending for the Military.
They have already run the country for four years with no budget. Now
they are demanding to be able to run the country with no limit on
spending.
Like I said before, they have no intention of solving the debt and deficit
crisis. If they did, they would know how high the debt would grow before
a plan of increased revenue and decreased spending would eliminate the
deficit. Of course they might have even more plans for increasing
spending. Perhaps legalizing the illegal aliens and giving them
Obamacare benefits. That would surely increase Government spending.
Keep
in mind that raising taxes on the richest 2% will only solve about 8%
of the deficit problem. This demand is confirmation that President
Obama and the Democrats have no intention of solving the debt problem.
Keep in mind that the race for President is now down to two choices:
Sticking with President Obama for four more years
Electing Romney as they new President
We have all experienced four years of Obama and there is no reason to expect any dramatic improvement in how he and his team (Biden-VP, Geithner-Treasury, Holder-'Justice', Solis-'Labor', Sebelius-HHS, Chu-Energy, Napolitano-Homeland Security, Jackson-EPA and Rice-UN) are running this country.
Perhaps President Obama's term would have been much better if he assumed office during good times. Then perhaps with nothing to fix, he could have run after his liberal agenda without the rest of the country suffering. As it so happens, his supporters blame the poor economy for the President's poor performance. However, Obama applied for the job of president knowing that the economy was a mess and that he was the man to fix it. Unfortunately for all of us, he was not.
So what can we expect with having Romney as President? How about a President with experience in fixing messes and turning around and transforming unprofitable businesses and events.
Take the Salt Lake City Olympics. The Olympics was setting up for a huge disaster. Mitt Romney was brought in to save the event, which went from being a huge money pit to actually turning a profit. Mitt Romney took control of the Olympic Games and turned them around from a disaster into a success.
Now picture Obama being put into the same situation. Might we have seen the same result. Or perhaps might he have turned a bad situation worse? Obama's experience has no examples of him doing anything similar. In fact, President Obama has little if any business experience. Instead, his presidency is full of examples where businesses have been targeted as the enemy. And remember that Obama and the Democrats Hate Your Job and your coal job.
Take his role in Bain Capital. He is being attacked for running a company that took businesses in trouble and either turned them around, restructured them to make a profit or closed them down if they were doomed.
Obama and the Democrats will have you think that the actions of Bain were somewhat bad. But lets think about this for a second. It is not like Bain was dismantling successful businesses. Let's face it businesses come and go, even successful ones. Remember Blockbuster Video? Borders Books? Reader's Digest? KB Toys? Bennigan's? Circuit City? Bethlehem Steel, Kodak? Polaroid? Sometimes it is nothing more than changing technology and a corporation's inability to adapt fast enough.
Take Polaroid and Kodak. they were experts at what they did, but have not been able to transition fast enough to survive the coming of digital cameras. Should the Government step in and save these companies? Should the Government save the jobs in these companies? Well what about all the new jobs being created as the new technology takes over from the old? Oh, you say that these new jobs are being created in China? Many are, but there is nothing that we can do about it. At least not until the living standards on those countries catches up to ours. Until then, companies are going to have to keep their manufacturing expenses as low as possible to ensure that the greatest number of people can afford their products. People in China need cars. Very few of them can afford any car made in the US or elsewhere in the first world. So they are going to have to be made in China and other low wage countries. But that fine because most Americans are not going to want to buy such a car. We are a different target market. This leaves room for other manufacturers to meet that demand.
As for jobs, I expect a Romney Administration to do the following to stimulate job creation:
Stabilize the business and personal tax rates
Replace all of Obama's political appointees
'Green light' the Keystone pipeline
Open of more Government lands and offshore areas to drilling
Ensure that new power plant applications are approved
Stop attacking the:
Banking Sector
Insurance sector
Medical sector
End mandatory healthcare coverage
Ah, that last point. Stop forcing companies to pay for employee medical care. This requirement along with increasing the minimum wage are killing all sorts of jobs. One group (among many) that has suffered are the young. Raising of wages and increasing the expense of employing people, such as through forced benefits, has both eliminated jobs for teens and other young as well as displace young workers with older workers who now find those jobs more appealing. Take supermarkets. You used to see young people working in those jobs. Now the supermarkets are full of employees who are working these jobs as full-time workers. Partly because these jobs have been forced to compensate them better and partly because there are less jobs of other kinds out there. Unfortunatly, there are even less supermarket jobs because companies are replacing some of these workers with automatic checkout. Simply because you do not have to pay for medical coverage for a machine.
Many Obama supporters are claiming that they do not want to take a risk on Romney. Well the country took a risk on Obama and we are all worse off. Will some people be worse off four years from now because of Romney? Sure. But we should not flush the whole country down the drain in defense of giving some people an ever-increasing basket of freebees. And this brings about the last important item - Benefit reform and passing a sustainable budget and budget plan. Romney and Ryan will be able to present a path forward. Obama has proven that he cannot and will not tackle the debt issue by failing to pass a budget in the last four years.
I understand that there are many reasons to vote for Obama, such as sticking it to rich people. Unfortunately, there are not enough rich people around to pay for our current spending and certainly not enough to pay for Obama's promise of 'FREE HEALTHCARE'. Things need to be paid for. In order to pay for as much as possible, more people need to be working. Romney will accomplish that. The first step is getting the Government's boot off the necks of the more prosperous half of the country.
Most Americans do not realize that there were two attacks in Benghazi the night of 9/11. One attack on the US Consulate and a second attack on the CIA Annex building in the City.
Those in the CIA Annex, called for help. Help was denied. Not only that, but they were ordered twice not to go and help those at the consulate.
At least three operatives disobeyed that order. Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was one of them and is one of the Americans who died later that night, about 7 hours after the attacks began. Most Americans believe that he was in the Consulate when the attack happened and that he died there. In fact he was at the CIA Annex. Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty also died while defending the CIA Annex.
With each day news of how the Administration completely mishandled the response to the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya just keeps getting worse. In recent days comes more troubling news that those on the group were pleading for help and there are claims that the requests for help were actively denied, by an as-yet unknown senior person in the Government, perhaps even the President himself or someone in his staff.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down." - Fox News
It seems to be a huge stroke of luck that those at the CIA Annex disobeyed orders, went to the Consulate and rescued the majority of the Americans there otherwise it is possible that all of the Americans at the Consulate would have ended up dead. Where is the Administration hiding them? Kind of interesting that none of them have had an opportunity to give their version of the events.
Making this twist in the story even more interesting is the news out of the CIA that no one within the CIA would have denied a request for help.
the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. - Link
President Obama is damn lucky that only four Americans died during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, not to mention all of the Americans there that survived the attacks. It is only due to the heroic efforts of those on the ground defending their location that they were not assassinated or kidnapped and made hostages in some sort of Tehran Embassy repeat. This attack could easily have ended up that way. It almost defies belief that over the course of the attack, no direct assistance was given.It is incredible and suggests to me that the President considered everyone on the ground that night expendable.
It certainly seems like the Administration is hiding a number of facts of the attacks, starting with the most basic details right to the lack of details of any response efforts made during the attack as well as what military assets might have been in the area to help. Were the predator drone in the area armed as it is suggested that at least one of them was? Was there a SPECTRE Gunship in the area as has been rumored? Finally, why where the Americans defending the CIA Annex lasing a target with the expectation that it would be hit from above? They would only do such a thing if they thought that there were military assets in the area with the capability of dropping a bomb or missile on their target. Might it be that they were told that help was coming? There just seem to be ever more questions regarding this attack..
One last thing. It is perfectly understandable that the Vice President and even the President would not know most of the details of this attack just after it happened, but one would think that weeks after they would be well briefed on the details of this terrorist attack. So it is somewhat inexcusable that Vice President Biden would have no idea that the Americans under attack in Benghazi had requested additional security in the month before the attack. Was the Vice President truly not briefed in these matters, or was he lying? Either way the answer does not bode well for the country.
The Benghazi terrorist attack which killed the US Diplomat to Libya and three other Americans is a big deal. The Obama Administration has accused Mitt Romney of politicizing the attack. This is a load of bull. The Obama Administration has been lying about the attack for weeks and even to this day still can't give straight answers as to how it came about that the US Consulate has less security than the US Embassy in peaceful Helsinki, Finland. This is despite pleas from the Ambassador for more security.
In addition to the lax security question, also unanswered is why the Administration decided to do nothing when they learned about the attack. The attack was brought to the President's attention while it was underway. The Administration took a 'Wait and See' approach.
The Administration openly blamed a stupid internet video. Even though they are downplaying the link now that the association has so opening been seen a lie, they are still holding the producer of the video in jail, not to be brought before a judge until after the election.
Then the Administration waited weeks before securing the Consulate site, leaving classified material free for the taking, even by the news media.
So the next time Obama declares that Mitt Romney politicized the Benghazi terror attack, hopefully someone will point out that it was the weeks of the Administration lying about the attack that politicized it.
Then there is the other Obama foreign relations disaster with a body count, that being 'Fast and Furious'. I hope that comes up for discussion during the last Presidential debate. Along with kicking our long-term friends the UK, Canada, Australia, Israel, Poland, Taiwan and other to the curb, while at the same time embracing Russia, the UN's despot-controlled 'Human Rights Council' and groups traditionally seen as supporters of terrorism.
First, there would have been no point to this story. But the Democrats had to insist in forcing companies and religious institutions to provide birth control to adults at no charge despite 'lack of access to birth control' not even being listed as any of the major reasons why women get accidentally pregnant.
One of Obama's major vote for free birth control warriors is Sandra Fluke. She has been activly promoted by Obama's re-election team, even given a speaking spot at the Democrat National Convention. Personally I do not know why, as the message of a 31 year old law graduate whining about her need to get free birth control does not really ring with me. It actually rings pretty hollow when you find out that a month's worth of birth control costs about $10. Everyone can pony up $10. The fact that Sandra can't gather a crowd of more than ten persons at an Obama re-election rally is pretty good evidence that her 15 minutes of fame is about over.
Now take Monica Lewinsky. I had a chance to see her back in 1999 when she appeared in Helsinki Finland for her book signing. This was her second appearance that day and all of the people packed into the bookstore are trying to get a glimpse of her. the first bookstore was so packed that you could not get into it. All of this is 3 years after the scandal that made her famous.
So maybe Obama should ask Monica if she can help him campaign. Because Sandra's message is just not cutting it.
With each passing day it seems that the Obama Administration is looking more and more responsible for the success of the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Take the following developments since the initial news of the attack:
The Obama Administration initially blamed the attack on protests against some crudely made internet video
The Administration claimed to have no intelligence information suggesting any impending attacks, however they were informed both internally and from foreign sources.
The attack happened on 9/11
The Administration, including the President, met during the attack and decided to take a 'wait-and-see' posture, deciding against sending forces to defend the consulate.
The Ambassador himself alerted the State Department regarding threats to his life.
The Ambassador had repeatedly requesting additional security.
The requests were denied.
the requests and the denials were kept from the public.
It took weeks before the Consulate was investigated by the FBI. To this day, there is no evidence that the State Department did anything to secure the site or any confidential information still remaining in the Consulate.
How is it possible, other than through a case of negligence, possibly bordering on criminal negligence, or through some huge misguided social experiment in 'Hope' is is possible for a consulate in a country full of persons violently hostile to Americans to have less security than the US Embassy in peaceful Helsinki, Finland. How is that possible? It's possible when you put a President in charge who does not believe in a strong defense. A President who believes that a strong defensive posture is what drives hate against Americans.
All I can say to that is that letting those who hate America destroy our Embassies and kill Americans is not going to extinguish the hate. All it will do is make America look weak and fan the flames of more hate.
This is just one more reason to elect Mitt Romney as the next President. The haters around the world will hate us no matter who is President. We can however minimize the threat by having a strong a proud President at the helm.
This is just the latest example of how much of a failure President Obama's soft stance against terrorism is. Hugging terrorists does not reform them. It never will. The Obama Administration will never understand this. The only 'extremists' they can recognize are members of the 'Tea Party.'
UPDATE 10 October 2012
Above I had mentioned the possibility that persons in the State Department might have been criminally negligent. Well, take a look at this Congressional hearing questioning Charlene R. Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs. Here is a summary of what she is responsible for:
Diplomatic Security Senior Leadership » Lamb, Charlene R - Assistant Director for International Programs
Biography
Other Releases
Bureau of Diplomatic Security
Washington, DC
Share on facebookShare on google_plusone
Share
Charlene R. Lamb
Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs
As the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs, Ms. Lamb is a key member of the DS management team, responsible for providing strategic planning, management support, and establishing budget priorities to senior DS management. Ms. Lamb manages more than $1.2 billion in security assets and programs and thousands of personnel dedicated to that purpose. She is also responsible for the safety and security of over 285 overseas Embassies and Consulates and oversees the 550 special agent/security professionals posted at those locations. - US State Department
That is a pretty impressive set os responsibilities. You know what else is impressive, her past history. Go ahead and read the rest of her bio which includes postings in a number of hot spots. It sounds like this is exactly the kind of person you would want overseeing embassy safety and security. Which makes this testimony all the more bizarre and I dare say damning. How on earth did she come to the conclusion that security in the consulate was anywhere near acceptable, especially considering that embassies in peaceful countries have much better security.
OK, so there is a program that telephone and cellular phone subscribers pay for that gives away cellular phones to the poor and dare I say 'near-poor'. The money comes from Universal Service Fund fees that are tacked onto most phone bills. The Universal Service Fund is:
The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have access to advanced telecommunications services; and finally, that the Federal-State Joint Board and the FCC should determine those other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the public interest. As of the third quarter of 2012, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.7 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues - Wiki
One of the approved uses of this money is to give free cellular phones, and cellular phone service to people who qualify. Who qualifies? Well, according to the Obama Phone website up to 35% of all Americans
If you, or members in your household are, receiving the following
benefits you automatically qualify for the Lifeline program. Those
interested in the program must have an income of less than 135% of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines. (For example in the 48 Contiguous States and
D.C the income level is $22,350 per year for a family of four.)
Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income – commonly known as SSI
Health Benefit Coverage under Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)
The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.
Low-Income Energy Assistance Program – LIHEAP
Federal Public Housing Assistance ( Section 8 )
If you are a low-income Eligible Resident of Tribal Lands
You have got to be kidding me. That is a huge number of people. And in certain areas of the country, I guess people could claim that everyone has an Obama Phone like was done in the video from Cleveland, Ohio earlier this week...
So where do I sign up for free alcohol?
But seriously, I do not have a land line phone. The cable company is more than willing to give me one for free, but I gave that phone up years ago because the 'Free' phone cost me about $10 a month in taxes. Part of those taxes was to fund this program which is probably being abused all to hell. What's next? Free internet? Apparently this is the direction that we are headed.
Keep this in mind the next time you look at your phone bill. What other programs are you paying for through fees in your phone bill.You might find some surprising things. Take the NY City area. Their phone bills also include a surtax for the Metropolitan Transit Authority. All of this you pay for to subsidize other people.
Yes, some people should get help. But I bet that people will be surprised at just how much help poor people already get as they cry to politicians to put their hands into your pockets yet again... Don't wait for any accountability anytime soon. They only want to audit the rich. There is no interest in auditing what happens to the money when it it given to the poor (in exchange for votes).
I was forwarded this and enjoyed it enough to share. If only President Obama and his follow Democrats could understand and confront this problem. I am not saying that the Republicans are blameless here. However, they are the only ones that both sides will hold to account regarding future spending....
----------------------------------
This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political doublespeak we get.
It puts it into a much better perspective.
US Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $16,000,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000
Now let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $160,000
Total budget cuts: $385
OK, now Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say … you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood and your home has sewage all the way up to the ceilings.
What do you think you should do ......
Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap?
----------------------------------
