Tag Archives: Obama

Iran Accuses U.S. of Lying About New Nuke Agreement

2 Apr

One executive failure after another…

Says White House misleading Congress, American people with fact sheet

Javad Zarif

Javad Zarif / AP

BY:
April 2, 2015 5:40 pm

 LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

“The solutions are good for all, as they stand,” he tweeted. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.”

Zarif went on to push back against claims by Kerry that the sanctions relief would be implemented in a phased fashion—and only after Iran verifies that it is not conducting any work on the nuclear weapons front.

Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions.

“Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter.

words 4

He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”

The pushback from Iran’s chief diplomat follows a pattern of similar accusations by senior Iranian political figures after the announcement of previous agreements.

Following the signing of an interim agreement with Iran aimed at scaling back its nuclear work, Iran accused the United States of lying about details of the agreement.

On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.

“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”

“Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in Fordow, but not enriching.”

The move to allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordow, a controversial onetime military site, has elicited concern that Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease.

Zarif said that once a final agreement is made, “all U.S. nuclear related secondary sanctions will be terminated,” he said. “This, I think, would be a major step forward.”

Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.

 Iran Says Nuclear Deal Hinges on U.S. Will to Lift Sanctions
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday, a deal on Iran’s nuclear program could be concluded this week if the United States and other Western countries have sufficient political will and agree to remove sanctions on Tehran. He said in Geneva, “Our negotiating partners, particularly the Western countries and particularly the United States, must once and for all come to the understanding that sanctions and agreement don’t go together.”
Inform

Mark Caserta: Obama’s actions expose his convictions

26 Mar

They also expose his priorities.

me

Free State Patriot Editor, Mark Caserta

Mar. 26, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

In their first Oval Office meeting in 2009, President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shook hands and agreed to do everything possible to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Since that time, U.S. relations with our longtime ally in the Middle East have gotten “progressively” worse while the prospects for a nuclear-armed Iran are heightening.

bo bn 1

Rather than choosing to foster our 60-year friendship with the Jewish State and living up to his promise of support, Obama has proceeded to ostracize Israel and barter with her enemies. This dangerous shift of support has emboldened anti-Semitic nations by muddying the political waters where U.S. support of Israel is concerned.

But a recent show of diplomatic ineptness by Obama may have delivered an irreparable blow to relations between Israel and the United States, at least for the duration of his presidency.

And two years is a very long time.

Shortly after Obama delivered his 2015 State of the Union address, House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress. The move was perceived by Democrats as a rebuke to the president’s repeated threat to veto new sanctions against Iran and disrupt negotiations with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. But to Republicans, the move was necessary to avoid a very poor deal which would result in a potential nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

bo bn 2

Obama’s decision not to meet with Netanyahu during his visit to the U.S. was met with great disdain and questioned by many on Capitol Hill. But the White House defended the move as standard operating procedure.

“As a matter of long-standing practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan. “Accordingly, the president will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress.”

But many believe that not only did the Obama administration not adhere to principle by avoiding influencing the Israeli election, they may have attempted to manipulate its outcome.

bo bn 3

A bipartisan Senate committee is now investigating the possibility the Obama administration may have aided efforts to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in last week’s election. Reportedly, the investigation focuses on State Department grants to a non-profit group that has been leading field organizing efforts openly aimed at replacing Netanyahu’s conservative government with a “center-left” coalition.

Obama’s actions, besides being nave and adolescent, betray his convictions. For what purpose does Obama seek to pave the way for a nuclear-armed Iran? And in what world can Iran be trusted with a nuclear weapon? It would almost certainly result in a third World War!

It’s past time for a bipartisan effort by Congress to rein in this president’s radical agenda.

The world is, indeed, on fire. And Barack Obama is fanning the flames.

bo bn 4

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page

Mark Caserta: Muslim outcry over terrorism is missing

27 Feb

…even from our own president.

me

FSP EDITORIAL

Feb. 26, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Civilized nations around the world are mourning the loss of 21 Egyptian Christians, ruthlessly murdered last week by the Islamic terrorist group, ISIS.

The brutal act, a “mass” beheading of “Copts,” an Orthodox Christian minority dating back to the first century church, was aimed directly at the Christian faith. The entire five-minute-long massacre which was videotaped and posted online, was entitled “A Message Signed With Blood, To The Nation of the Cross.”

obama muslim 1

The gruesome film emblazoned the severed heads sadistically set atop the victims’ backs. An ISIS jihadist dressed in military fatigues spoke with American-accented English as he pronounced, “All praise is due to Allah, the strong and mighty. And may blessings and peace be upon the ones sent by the sword as a mercy to all the worlds.”

I found this vile message of “blessings and peace” to be sickening and inexorably spewed from the mouth of a demented, Islamic deviant who inhumanely values the glory of death over the condition of life. Surely such an act of terror, in the name of Allah, would be rigorously condemned by those following the Muslim “religion of peace.”

obama muslim 2

But few supporters of the Muslim faith have stepped out to denounce the barbarism of Islamic terrorism and rightfully recognize it as a “religious war” being waged by radical Islamic extremists – including President Obama.

However, Reverend Franklin Graham, a Christian, was quick to decry the horrific act and provide some austere perspective to the incident.

“Can you imagine the outcry if 21 Muslims had been beheaded by Christians?” Franklin asked. “Where is the universal condemnation by Muslim leaders around the world? As we mourn with the families of those 21 martyrs, we’d better take this warning seriously as these acts of terror will only spread throughout Europe and the United States.”

He added the grave warning, “The storm is coming.” And I believe the reverend is right.

obama muslim 3

A number of recent reports indicate there are already a number of Islamic terrorist “sleeper cells” within the United States spread out across the country. Intelligence reports from Egypt, a nation now at the forefront in fighting ISIS, indicate global jihadist groups are planning a worldwide offensive this spring or summer that could reach targets within the U.S.

One would think that the reality of another Islamic terror attack on the U.S. would spur some sober thought and deliberate action from the Obama administration. But all Americans are seeing is a president who apparently values the sanctity of the Muslim faith over protecting Americans from Islamic militants who value their religion over the lives of those who don’t.

And progressives, like Obama, attempting to “level the killing fields” through a superfluous comparison of burnings and beheadings to other periods of bloodshed throughout history, serves absolutely no purpose in protecting the U.S. and is sanctimonious and naive at best.

How can we ever hope to defeat an enemy that we refuse to recognize?

Yes, there is a storm coming. And President Obama should be leading America as commander-in-chief, not an Islamic apologist.

obama muslim 4

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Obama’s Israel Problem

29 Jan

Obama determined to have Palestinian State as his legacy…

obama muslim

9:02 AM, Jan 29, 2015 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

The Obama administration is angry with Israel. Here’s the administration’s house organ, the New York Times, this morning:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, after days of mounting tension, signaled on Wednesday how angry it is with Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted Republican leaders’ invitation to address Congress on Iran without consulting the White House.

The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama’s inner circle became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.

The official who made the comments to The New York Times would not be named…

netanyahu

Of course, the official who last summer called Prime Minister Netanyahu a “coward” and a “chickens–t” would not be named either. But there is no reason to think those unnamed angry officials do not speak for an angry president.

The Obama White House usually prides itself on not getting angry. Its self-image is that it’s cool, calm, and collected. And it doesn’t get angry at, for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Obama White House understands and appreciates the complexities of the Islamic Republic’s politics and history. It is only with respect to the Jewish state that the Obama White House is impatient, peremptory, and angry.

Why has Obama been lashing out? Because he had a dream. He was to be the American president who would preside at, and take credit for, the founding of a Palestinian state. Obama would be to Palestine what Harry Truman was to Israel. Now it’s clear that’s not going to happen during his presidency. Obama’s frustrated that it’s not going to happen. So he lashes out.

israeli flag

But Obama is still pursuing another dream: to be the American president who goes to Tehran, who achieves with Iran what Richard Nixon achieved with China. And he thinks Israel, and Israel’s friends in the United States, stand in the way of achieving that dream. So he has another reason to be angry.

Of course, it’s not Israel but reality that stands in the way of Obama’s dreams. His Cairo speech, and the policies that followed from it, have crashed on the shoals of reality. Obama said in Cairo in June 2009, that he hoped that his administration would end the “cycle of suspicion and discord” between the United States and much of the Muslim world:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. …

There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.”

But the truth is that Obama’s policies haven’t ameliorated the crisis in Islam or lessened the discord between Islam and the West. They have worsened the discord and exacerbated the crisis. Obama’s policies of retreat have strengthened radical Islam, and undermined those in the Muslim world who do believe in “justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

It is Obama’s failures that explain his anger—his failures, and his hopes that a breakthrough with Iran could erase the memories of failure and appear to vindicate his foreign policy. Israel stands in the way, he thinks, of this breakthrough. Prime Minister Netanyahu stands in the way. And so Obama lashes out.

It’s of course unseemly. But it’s also dangerous. Neville Chamberlain and the British establishment were far angrier with Winston Churchill, and much harsher in their attempts to discredit him, in the late 1930s when the dreams of appeasement were failing, than earlier, when hope for the success of appeasement was alive. When you think your policies are going to be vindicated, you ignore or dismiss critics. It’s when you suspect and fear imminent failure that you lash out.

So we have an angry president, increasingly desperate for vindication of his failed foreign policy, accelerating both his appeasement of Iran and his attacks on Israel. The good news is that the Republican party and the conservative movement—and most of the American people—stand with Israel and against President Obama. Of major parts of the American Jewish community, on the other hand, one can say no such thing.

Mark Caserta: Scandal characteristic of Obama’s rule

8 Jan

Will the pattern continue into 2015?

mark 2

FSP editor – Mark Caserta

Jan. 08, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

While President Obama charged Republicans with probing “phony scandals” in 2014, a look back at the sheer number of aspersions throughout his progressive tenure suggests that abuse of power and corruption are not something being dreamed up by the GOP, but instead a defining characteristic of the Obama administration.

Last year, the president assured Americans there wasn’t “a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS, yet investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed intentional targeting of conservative organizations prior to the 2012 election. IRS Director Lois Lerner was ultimately held in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the committee investigation. Questions remain as to White House involvement and any intent to cover up the scandal.

lois-lerner1

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki was forced to resign following an interim independent report showing officials falsified records at a medical center in Phoenix, hiding the amount of time veterans had to wait for medical appointments. Subsequent investigations revealed a systematic breakdown across the country revealing false record-keeping and long waiting lists for veterans, some who died while waiting for care.

eric shenseki

Americans actually witnessed a three-part scandal in the attack on Benghazi: The failure of the administration to protect the Benghazi mission on the anniversary of 9/11, the changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video, and the refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack.

benghazi first

Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the “Fast and Furious” scandal, the first time Congress has ever taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official. Then CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson exposed the truth about her investigations into this and other Obama administration’s scandals in her book, “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction and Intimidation in Obama’s Washington.”

While the number of executive orders issued by the president is within the range of recent past presidents, the scope of the orders has gone far beyond what is constitutional. Obama altered Obamacare 38 times by executive fiat despite not having the constitutional authority to unilaterally alter passed legislation. In the face of several Supreme Court decisions that went against him, a defiant Obama mockingly taunted Congress by saying, “So sue me.”

nfl 4

As the Obamacare “shared responsibility” payment prepares to impact Americans across the country, details of the lies and deception needed to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have emerged. Jonathan Gruber, a health economist who helped design Obama’s health care law, stated during a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania that the ACA “was written in a tortured way to make sure” it did not appear to raise taxes, because it would not have passed if voters knew the truth.

With two years remaining in the Obama administration’s rule over the United States, one can only hope the number of scandals will be kept to a minimum. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

false 3

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

How to Rebuke a President

23 Nov

If not impeachment, then what?

Censure-plus.

Dec 1, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 12 • By JAY COST

——————————————————————————————————————————

Cen·sure

 verb: 3rd person present: censures; past tense: censured; past participle: censured; gerund or present participle: censuring

  1. To express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement.     
  2.  The expression of formal disapproval

For responding to a president who defies his constitutional limits, Congress is said to possess four powers: to impeach, to defund, to investigate, and to withhold confirmation of nominees.

obama censure

Gary Locke

But there is a fifth recourse, which the new Republican Congress might consider in view of President Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal immigrants: the power to censure. In fact, censure could work in tandem with Congress’s other powers, helping the legislature make the moral case for responding to the president’s lawlessness.

Presidential censure is a rare occurrence. Most notably, in 1834, the Whig-controlled Senate censured President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, for moving federal deposits from the Second Bank of the United States to local banks, derisively called his “pets” because most were operated by loyal Democrats.

Jackson’s legal justification was dubious at best. Under the law, only the secretary of the Treasury could initiate such a transfer, and then only if the funds were deemed insecure. But the Bank had been impeccably run since Nicholas Biddle became its president in 1822. An investigation had ascertained that the funds were perfectly safe, and the House had voted overwhelmingly to affirm that fact. Treasury Secretary William Duane, moreover, refused to remove the money or to step down so Jackson could install somebody who would. Jackson fired Duane, replacing him with Roger Taney without Senate confirmation. Taney’s cronies would go on to grossly mismanage funds in Jackson’s pet bank in Baltimore.

lie 2

This series of actions added up to a severe presidential encroachment. So the Senate—led by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster—censured Jackson by passing this resolution: “Resolved, That the President, in the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.”

The censure wounded the president’s bountiful pride, so much so that in 1837, Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton, a fierce Jackson loyalist, had the resolution stricken from the record.

The facts surrounding Obama’s amnesty of illegal immigrants parallel those of Jackson’s deposit removal scheme. In both instances, we see a president circumventing the traditional and proper constitutional pathways to confer a partisan benefit, creating a dangerous precedent. Jackson had no right to remove deposits that Congress deemed safe; Obama has no right to exempt large classes of people from laws that were duly authorized by the government. Jackson’s actions were meant to rebuke Biddle for supporting Henry Clay for president in 1832 and, later, to supply patronage to pro-Democratic bank managers; Obama’s action is a blatant attempt to curry favor with a sought-after voting bloc and make his partisan opponents look bad in comparison. Both presidents’ unilateral measures admit of no limiting principle; the law is abrogated simply because the president finds it politically inconvenient. If this became a norm, it would destroy our system of government.

gruber 3

Indeed, Clay’s denunciation of Jackson’s deposit removal rings true today: “We are in the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, but rapidly tending toward a total change of the pure republican character of the government, and the concentration of all power in the hands of one man.” Obama, like Jackson before him, seeks to aggrandize the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch, unbalancing the constitutional regime and justifying censure.

Censure alone, however, would be a meek gesture. Devoid of substance, it would signal legislative impotence; perversely, it might even strengthen Obama’s hand. Something similar happened in 1834 when, after the Senate censured Jackson, nothing changed. The money stayed in the pet banks, and all that Clay really managed to do was offend Jackson’s sense of honor. As historians David and Jeanne Heidler rightly note, “Clay won this battle, but Jackson won the war.”

Thus, censure should be wielded in conjunction with other legitimate legislative powers.

Recent news reports have suggested that Republicans have a plan in mind. As Byron York wrote in the Washington Examiner:

Republicans will work on crafting a new spending measure that funds the entire government, with the exception of the particular federal offices that will do the specific work of enforcing Obama’s order.

Republican sources liken the contemplated action to Congress’s move to stop the president from closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo Bay: In 2009, lawmakers denied Obama the money he would have needed to proceed. Guantánamo remains open.

obama vote 3

State Department plans to bring foreign Ebola patients to U.S.

28 Oct

STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT REVEALS PLANS

ebola to us

The State Department has quietly made plans to bring Ebola-infected doctors and medical aides to the U.S. for treatment, according to an internal department document that argued the only way to get other countries to send medical teams to West Africa is to promise that the U.S. will be the world’s medical backstop.

Some countries “are implicitly or explicitly waiting for medevac assurances” before they will agree to send their own medical teams to join U.S. and U.N. aid workers on the ground, the State Department argues in the undated four-page memo, which was reviewed by The Washington Times.

“The United States needs to show leadership and act as we are asking others to act by admitting certain non-citizens into the country for medical treatment for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) during the Ebola crisis,” says the four-page memo, which lists as its author Robert Sorenson, deputy director of the office of international health and biodefense.

More than 10,000 people have become infected with Ebola in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, and the U.S. has taken a lead role in arguing that the outbreak must be stopped in West Africa. President Obama has committed thousands of U.S. troops and has deployed American medical personnel, but other countries have been slow to follow.

In the memo, officials say their preference is for patients go to Europe, but there are some cases in which the U.S. is “the logical treatment destination for non-citizens.”

The document has been shared with Congress, where lawmakers already are nervous about the administration’s handling of the Ebola outbreak. The memo even details the expected price per patient, with transportation costs at $200,000 and treatment at $300,000.

A State Department official signaled Tuesday evening that the discussions had been shelved.

“There is no policy of the U.S. government to allow entry of non-U.S. citizen Ebola-infected to the United States. There is no consideration in the State Department of changing that policy,” the official said.

Another official said the department is considering using American aircraft equipped to handle Ebola cases to transport noncitizens to other countries.

ebola 6

“We have discussed allowing other countries to use our medevac capabilities to evacuate their own citizens to their home countries or third-countries, subject to reimbursement and availability,” the second department official said.

The internal State Department memo is described as “sensitive but unclassified.” A tracking sheet attached to it says it was cleared by offices of the deputy secretary, the deputy secretary for management, the office of Central African affairs and the medical services office.

A call to the number listed for Mr. Sorenson wasn’t returned Tuesday.

Mr. Obama has been clear about his desire to recruit medical and aid workers to fight Ebola in Africa.

“We know that the best way to protect Americans ultimately is going to stop this outbreak at the source,” the president said at the White House on Tuesday, praising U.S. aid workers who are already involved in the effort. “No other nation is doing as much to make sure that we contain and ultimately eliminate this outbreak than America.”

About half of the more than 10,000 cases in West Africa have been fatal.

Four cases have been diagnosed in the U.S., and three of those were health care workers treating infected patients. Two of those, both nurses at a Dallas hospital, have been cured.

ebola ny 1

Several American aid workers who contracted the disease overseas were flown to the U.S. for treatment.

The United Nations and World Health Organization are also heavily involved in deploying to the affected region, but other countries have been slower to provide resources to fight Ebola in West Africa or to agree to treat workers who contract the disease.

The State Department memo says only Germany has agreed to take non-German citizens who contract Ebola.

European nations are closer to West Africa, making transport easier, the State Department memo said.

Officials said the U.S. is the right place to treat some cases, notably those in which non-Americans are contracted to work in West Africa for U.S.-based charities, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“So far all of the Ebola medevacs brought back to U.S. hospitals have been U.S. citizens. But there are many non-citizens working for U.S. government agencies and organizations in the Ebola-affected countries of West Africa,” the memo says. “Many of them are citizens of countries lacking adequate medical care, and if they contracted Ebola in the course of their work they would need to be evacuated to medical facilities in the United States or Europe.”

dr spencer

The memo says the State Department has a contract with Phoenix Aviation, which maintains an airplane capable of transporting an Ebola patient. The U.S. can transport noncitizens and have other countries or organizations pay the cost.

The U.S. has helped transport three health care workers to Germany and one to France.

In the U.S., the department memo lists three hospitals — the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Emory University Hospital in Atlanta — that are willing to take Ebola patients.

According to the memo, Homeland Security Department officials would be required to waive legal restrictions to speed the transport of patients into the U.S. “A pre-established framework would be essential to guarantee that only authorized individuals would be considered for travel authorization and that all necessary vetting would occur,” the memo says.

A Homeland Security spokeswoman didn’t return emails seeking comment.

Judicial Watch, a conservative-leaning public interest watchdog, revealed the existence of a State Department plan this month. When The Times described the document to Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, he said it is evidence of why the administration balked at adopting a travel ban on those from affected countries.

“Under this theory, there could be people moving here now, transporting people here now, and it could be done with no warning,” Mr. Fitton said. “If our borders mean anything, it is the ability to make sure that dire threats to the public health are kept out.”

ebola 8

After those initial reports surfaced, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, sent a letter asking for answers. On Tuesday, he said the document The Times obtained “raises more concerns and questions than answers.”

“President Obama should be forthcoming with the American people about the scope of his plan to bring non-U.S. citizens infected with Ebola to the United States for treatment,” Mr. Goodlatte said in a statement.

Obama makes rare campaign trail appearance, people leave early

19 Oct

America tiring of this president…

obama 1

By Jeff Mason

Thu, Oct 16 2014

UPPER MARLBORO Md. (Reuters) – President Barack Obama made a rare appearance on the campaign trail on Sunday with a rally to support the Democratic candidate for governor in Maryland, but early departures of crowd members while he spoke underscored his continuing unpopularity.

With approval levels hovering around record lows, Obama has spent most of his campaign-related efforts this year raising money for struggling Democrats, who risk losing control of the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 4 midterm election.

Most candidates from his party have been wary of appearing with him during their election races because of his sagging popularity.

Not so Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown of Maryland, who is running for governor, and Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois, who is running for re-election. Obama plans to appear at an event for Quinn later in the evening.

“You’ve got to vote,” Obama repeated over and over at a rally for Brown in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, near Washington.

Democrats have a history of not turning up to vote in midterm elections.

U.S. President Obama waves as he arrives for a campaign rally for Maryland Lt. Gov. Brown at a High School in Upper Marlboro

“There are no excuses. The future is up to us,” Obama said.

A steady stream of people walked out of the auditorium while he spoke, however, and a heckler interrupted his remarks.

Obama’s help, or lack thereof, may not matter much to Brown, who is 11 points ahead of Republican opponent Larry Hogan, according to an average of polls by RealClearPolitics.

Quinn’s race is tighter. He is ahead of Republican opponent Bruce Rauner by 1.8 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average.

Obama is scheduled to spend the night at his Chicago home after the campaign event for Quinn.

obama muslim

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Gallup: Voter opposition to Obama at 16-year high, worse than Bush, Clinton

5 Oct

By Paul Bedard | October 5, 2014 | 1:07 pm

 dems turn 3
Angry and frustrated voters are planning to use the midterm elections in one month to tell President Obama they oppose his agenda, the highest “no vote” percentage in the last 16 years measured by Gallup.

The polling outfit found that 32 percent of voters want to send a message of opposition with their vote, compared to just 20 percent who are sending a signal of support.

That is 13 points higher than in 1998 when former President Clinton was headed to impeachment for lying about his sex affair with a former White House intern and even a smidge higher — 2 points — than in 2008, when Americans were tired of President Bush’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unusual question was first asked by Gallup in 1998. It reads: “Will your vote for a candidate be made in order to send a message that you SUPPORT [Barack Obama], be made in order to send a message that you OPPOSE [Barack Obama], or will you NOT be sending a message about [Barack Obama] with your vote?”

Not surprisingly, Republicans want to use their vote as a megaphone of opposition. Said Gallup:

“A majority of Republican registered voters, 58 percent, say they will be sending a message of opposition to Obama with their vote this fall. In contrast, 38 percent of Democratic voters say they will support the president. Rather than supporting Obama, most Democrats, 53 percent, say they will not be sending a message with their vote.

“Democrats are a bit less likely now (38 percent) than in 2010 (45 percent) to say they will be sending a message of support to Obama, while Republican opposition to the president is the same.”

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

TELL THE EPA TO BACK OFF!

20 Sep
IMPORTANT!!!  IMPORTANT!!!  IMPORTANT!!!

COAL 1
All my friends who support coal:

It’s time to stand up for coal. Send the EPA an email on behalf of WV and Congressman Nick Joe Rahall. He has requested West Virginians take advantage of the newly extended deadline for public input on the EPA’s proposed rule limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants. The EPA has moved its deadline for public comment on the Clean Power Plant Proposed Rule from October 16, to December 1, 2014, giving citizens an additional 45 days to weigh in. Please share this information. This is a way we can make a difference!

Send email to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov
In subject line type: ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

COAL 2

Here is a letter you may copy and paste into an email. Feel free to modify:

Dear EPA representative:

I stand with Congressman Nick Joe Rahall against the war on coal.

Coal is not only the life blood of West Virginians, millions of people outside of our state will be affected adversely in higher utility costs.
We are all for an “all of the above” strategy for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil from nations which really don’t like us very much.
But the Obama administration has repeatedly shown its disdain for anything and everything to do with fossil fuels. His goal is one of singularity: Bankrupt the coal industry.
As one of these great “’United States’ of America”, West Virginia and surrounding coal states like Kentucky and Pennsylvania will be crippled. Our people will be more deeply suppressed into a poverty the rest of the nation could not possibly fathom or frankly, understand.
Our children will not be able to compete on a national level and we will wither into the ever-growing safety net of the U.S. government – at her mercy and under her wing of sustenance.
Americans and West Virginians deserve better. We implore you to honor our state’s service to the country in providing abundant energy for all Americans. Work with Congressman Rahall to develop clean coal technology.
Give coal the chance the Obama administration has offered other forms of energy. West Virginia will not let our country down!
And as West Virginians, we honor the efforts of Congressman Rahall. He stands with us in this fight.

Respectfully,

Your name

COAL 3