Middle East and Other Musings: Back From Orlando!

===

Iran threatens to humiliate us with their toy fleet. (See 1 below.)

===

Could be premature but let his words reach G--'s ears.

If Republicans do, they better be constructive and not fight with each other over the spoils. They have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot.

If they win in 2014 and are not successful in a positive agenda they will lose even bigger in 2016. (See 2 below.)

===
Israel and peace with Palestinians and Obama's foreign policy. (See 3 and 3a below.)
===

Police In Detroit announce the discovery of an arms cache of 200 semi-automatic rifles with 25,000 rounds of ammunition, 200 pounds of heroin, 5 million dollars in forged US banknotes and 25 undocumented Latino prostitutes--all in a semi-detached house behind the Public Library on Woodward Avenue.

Local residents were stunned and a community spokesman said: "We were all shocked. We never knew that we had a library."

===
It's that income inequality thing. (See 4 below.)
===
Back from Orlando. Dagny's birthday party went without a hitch and even the weather cooperated. When available will post a few pictures.
===
The rest of this memo will consist of a LTE I wrote while away and then postings I received..
===

I was early in recognizing Obama was an empty suit and ill qualified to be president.

It has taken five years for much of the public to reach the same conclusion.

More recently imminent Law Professors, some of whom liked Obama's legislation (Professor Jonathan Turley) believe his peremptory actions are dangerous and a threat to our form of government.

Because Obama is frustrated with Congress he has chosen to operate outside Constitutional restraints and were he not the iconic president I presume Congress would have begun his impeachment.

Obama's actions to change laws he does not like, to refuse to enforce laws he does not like are symptomatic of a dictator and tyrant and The Founders envisioned such when they drafted our Constitution and divided government as they did.

No, he is not the first but he is the most aggressive and successful in challenging the fact that we were founded on the basic principle that we are a nation of laws.

Obama will be gone but the damage he will have done and is doing , on a daily basis, and the support he is receiving from an Attorney General who is equally corrupt will linger and could alter our nation in a tragic way that will be permanent.

Yes, I am vocal and more need to be as well. Silence allows vacuums to be filled by those with evil intent.

===

Summary

Tehran announced Feb. 8 that it had dispatched a frigate and a supply ship to the North Atlantic Ocean, where they will approach U.S. maritime borders. This is not the first time the Iranians have announced their intent to deploy naval vessels close to the United States. Iran made two such declarations in 2011 but never followed through.

However, following the most recent announcement, Iranian Adm. Afshin Rezayee Haddad said the Iranian fleet is actually underway, already approaching the South Atlantic Ocean through waters off the coast of South Africa. The Iranian decision to deploy naval vessels to the North Atlantic is largely symbolic; it does not pose any real military risk. Iran will use the deployment to show the flag in a non-threatening manner, looking to appease its hard-liners who are dubious about the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks.

Analysis

Given the ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P-5+1 group -- the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany -- the Iranian navy's operation takes place in a politically sensitive context. Decades of animosity between the United States and Iran has created diehard camps in each country that must be managed carefully because they can seriously disrupt any potential agreement. The political rhetoric surrounding the talks can seem polarized at times, with any breakthrough in negotiations matched by stern warnings and guarantees that neither side is giving up too much.

For the United States, this rhetoric translates as continued assurances of the effectiveness of current sanctions. In return, Iran constantly reiterates the parts of its nuclear program that it has refused to give up. Both sides also like to remind each other that military options are always on the table. The possible excursion into the Atlantic by the Iranian navy -- and the public announcement about the deployment -- fits this ongoing dynamic between Tehran and Washington.

It is unclear whether the Iranians will actually sail to the North Atlantic, but it is important to note that such a deployment is certainly within their capabilities. The Iranian navy is dominated by small patrol and fast attack missile boats that are ideally suited for operations in and along the Persian Gulf. These vessels are unable to deploy far from Iran, but Tehran also has around four other vessels similar to the currently deployed frigate that enable it to conduct occasional long-distance missions such as the announced Atlantic deployment.

An Armada of Two

These long-distance blue-water (non-coastal) capabilities are limited; the warships themselves must be accompanied by a specialist ship, especially when venturing as far as the western Atlantic. The other craft the Iranians use to project naval force is a replenishment vessel that provides fuel, food, fresh water and ammunition for extended deployments. This vessel is the Kharg, an aging Ol-class design built in the United Kingdom in the late 1970s and delivered to the Iranians in 1984. Without this vessel, the small number of Iranian frigates would be unable to embark on extended deployments without consistent and frequent port visits along the way, a method that the Iranians cannot rely on for a mission to the Atlantic.

Media reports of Iranian vessels sailing across the world's oceans instill national pride inside Iran. Tehran has repeatedly made exaggerated boasts about its military prowess, both as a deterrent to foreign enemies as well as for domestic propaganda purposes. Deploying military vessels to the Atlantic -- especially in proximity to the United States' territorial waters -- is a good way to demonstrate the Iranian navy's reach. This is particularly important at a time when many Iranian hard-liners continue to seethe at what they view as a destabilizing U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf. As Haddad said, the primary motivation behind such a deployment "has a message": Iran is looking to give the United States a taste of its own medicine.

However, the potential deployment of an Iranian flotilla to the North Atlantic will be far more effective at galvanizing national attention than worrying the United States. The reality is indisputable: Tehran's naval deployment poses no threat to the United States. If anything, the Iranian vessels, sailing far from Iran's territorial waters, are at their most vulnerable in the open waters of the Atlantic. The Iranian navy cannot hope to compete in blue-water operations against the U.S. Navy. Even the best of Iran's naval platforms have limited capabilities relative to almost any comparable U.S. Navy platform, in terms of weapons range, speed, countermeasures and detection range. The real threat posed by the Iranian navy continues to rest on their ability to disrupt maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf, especially the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The proclaimed Iranian mission to the Atlantic is another vivid reminder of a wider truth about the Iranian armed forces; that despite very old and aging equipment, the Iranians continue to maintain what they have and take their training very seriously. In any extended deployment using aging vessels, there is a tangible risk of a breakdown, as was seen with the four-decade-old Moroccan landing ship that required U.S. assistance after it took on water near Puerto Rico in 2005. As long as the Iranian navy avoids breaking down entirely or being forced into port for repairs, a deployment to the Atlantic will serve its symbolic purpose of showing strength and capability to the United States, while placating the more entrenched domestic factions at home.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) Limbaugh Predicts Republican 'Wave' in Midterm ElectionsM

By Cathy Burke

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday predicted frustrated voters will create "a wave election like 2010" in this year's midterms, kicking out Democrats "every chance they get."

On his daily radio show, Limbaugh pointed to "plenty of evidence" for the potential sweep, citing the retirement announcement last month of California liberal icon Rep. Henry Waxman and several other Democrats.

"They're in the swan's song portion of their lives anyway," Limbaugh said. "Waxman, he doesn't want to be a member of a minority in the House of Representatives, where basically all they're doing is writing executive orders for [President Barack] Obama . . . These people don't want to be in the minority. It's no fun."
"I'm gonna go out on a limb here," Limbaugh declared. "I fully expect the 2014 midterms to be a wave election like 2010. I think the people of this country are gonna sweep Democrats out of office every chance they get, every opportunity they get."

The sweep will be fueled by voters fed up with steamroller tactics by the White House and the legislative and judicial branches.

"I think this is setting up every bit as big as 2010, if not bigger," he said. "The tea party, the American people are livid by what's going on . . . They can't believe the people whose power is being stolen are not standing up and trying to get it back."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Obama's War on Israel

If the left’s foreign policy these days had a slogan, it would be, “Boycott Israel, not Iran.” The double standard, dishonest as it is ugly, is also the motto of Obama’s foreign policy, which benevolently blesses Iran’s nuclear program with one outstretched hand in the name of peace and chokes concessions out of Israel to the terrorists with the other also in the name of peace.

Both peace plans are going disastrously according to plan.

Iran has made it clear that it will dismantle nothing and that it will go on developing ballistic missiles and nuclear technology. Its military commanders threaten to attack the United States and boast that their ships are encroaching on America’s maritime borders.

The Palestinian Authority has shed the last vestiges of democracy as its leader begins the tenth year of a four-year term and its elected legislature has been discarded in favor of the PLO Council. Instead of a representative government, the Palestinian Authority has reverted back to what it always was; the PLO.

A Palestinian state has receded into the figment of a dream as elections have become a distant memory and Hamas continues to hold Gaza, leaving a PLO mafia in the West Bank to maintain its monopoly on cigarettes and other commodities while passing around Western aid money to its terrorist militias.

The more Kerry pressures Israel, the more bellicose PLO leaders have become. Fatah officials have accused Kerry of threatening to poison Abbas, the Palestinian Authority’s current President-for-Life. The accusation is ridiculous, but the PLO, like Iran, is feeling emboldened by American weakness.

The softer American power gets, the harder its enemies hit.

Obama Inc. however has eyes only for Israel. Its officials and its allied media apparatus in New York and Washington have decided to hold Israel’s Prime Minister personally accountable for any criticism of Kerry and Obama not only by Israeli Jews … but also by American Jews.

An Obama Inc. official said that Obama and Kerry were disturbed over “Jewish activism in Congress” and that the administration had informed Israel of its displeasure over criticism of them by American Jews. Holding Netanyahu accountable for the comments of American Jewish leaders is an ugly Alinskyite tactic in which Obama uses Israel as a hostage in order to silence domestic Jewish criticism.

“Shut up or the Jewish State gets it.”

The constant monitoring and suppression of Israeli criticism was so pervasive that Kerry’s handler, Jen Psaki, denounced a comedy video mocking his disastrous diplomacy put out by an Israeli political group, sight unseen, while discussing expectations that Israeli leaders would rein in criticism of Kerry.

Psaki described criticism of Kerry as “not an attack on him; that’s an attack on the process. And of course that kind of rhetoric we find unacceptable.” John Forbes Kerry had become the living embodiment of peace. The peace process, whether in Iran or Israel, had become reducible to peace. Opposing it meant opposing peace and supporting war. And Kerry had become reducible to the process and therefore to peace. Louis XIV had only claimed to embody the State. Kerry claims to embody peace.

Meanwhile Kerry makes poorly coded threats about international boycotts and intifadas to Israel while promising Jerusalem to the PLO.

The lack of options is the theme of both peace plans. Sanctions on Iran mean war, claims Obama. A failure to reach a deal that will let Iran keep its nuclear program also means war. And so, in true Chamberlainian fashion, the only alternative to war is to accept any offer that the enemy makes.

The willingness to accept any deal is the traditional negotiating posture of the losers of a war, but when any alternative to a peace deal is considered unacceptable, the peace negotiators come to the table as the losers of a war that was never even fought because they had already surrendered in all but name.

When the Senate attempted a little bit of bipartisan pressure on Iran, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes began denouncing the vast Jewish war conspiracy and the left-wing of an already left-wing media shrieked that we were about to be plunged into a war by the Zionist warmongerers. The same outlets that give a hearing to proposals to boycott Israel, chant in angry unison that any boycott of Iran is an act of war.

Every good progressive in Obama Inc. and in its media corps knows that Iran, which took American hostages and murdered hundreds of Americans, is a victim of American foreign policy, while Israel, which is being cut up into a completely indefensible, broken territory for a peace that will never come, is its beneficiary. The terrorist peace processes are unworkable, but they were never supposed to work.

The peace process with the Palestinian Authority has always failed because it was always meant to fail. Peace was the brass ring that Israel was supposed to reach for, but never actually get close enough to reach, carving itself to pieces under the bloody knives of the negotiators in the hopes of proving its moral worth to the world. Dying so that it might be allowed to live. The Iranian deal is more of the same.

Perhaps there is enough tie dye in Obama’s blood for him to genuinely want a world without nukes, but if the US is to retain its nuclear capability, then like Oppenheimer and the other scientists who helped the USSR get the bomb in the name of world peace, he wants Iran to have the bomb for world peace.

Prime Minister Netanyahu thought that he might be able to trade one peace process for another, but he hasn’t even been able to trade concessions to terrorists for sanctions on Iran. Instead he has made the worst possible bargain, trading a self-inflicted punch in the face for an enemy’s kick in the teeth. Israel has once again ended up with the worst of both worlds in the name of peace.

Obama’s dual peace processes have the same agenda. They are both meant to destroy Israel. If the PLO can’t get the job done with intermittent terrorism and negotiations, maybe a nuclear Iran will. The goal is to create enough threats to Israel that it either ceases to be a viable state or simply ceases to exist.

The destruction of Israel flows naturally from the destruction of American power. Israel has to be undone, just as Mubarak was undone, just as the United States military was undone, to heal the humiliations of the Muslim world. The United States had to lose in Afghanistan and Iraq, it had to destroy its allies in the Middle East, to make Muslims feel good about finally defeating the United States.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

3a) Peace talks and the Kerry document: A predictable ending

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is learning the hard, roundabout way that 150-year-old bloody conflicts (according to narrative A, Jews versus Arabs) and thousands-of-years-old bloody conflicts (according to narrative B, Israelites versus Canaanites) cannot be solved with a sword-wielding dove.

As has been proved countless times in history, peace cannot be forced on anyone. Peace is not made through coercion; love does not develop in the brain. As was written in Kings 1: “And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom … and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together.” The wise man, king of Israel, understood that a ratified peace deal was only possible once peace had been achieved between those in conflict.

Whoever tries to cut a deal first and seek peace later is leading his or her people astray. There will never be peace as long as the Palestinian Arabs remain unwilling to recognize a Jewish state of Israel, end incitement and wake up from the dream of return, which, as long as Israelis value their lives, will never be fulfilled. The greatest tragedy in our region is that the sons of darkness among our neighbors are much more determined than the sons of light, hindering progress toward reconciliation and peace.

When Kerry shows early signs of dejection or desperation over his ability to make quick peace during his term, even Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman lets himself go, obsequiously complimenting Kerry's determination and longing for immediate peace. When it turns out that the Kerry document is nothing more than a collection of disputable items, a document that leaves Israeli security to advanced technology and foreign armies, even Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett will go up to the Torah in his synagogue to intone an ancient blessing in honor of U.S. President Barack Obama and the secretary of state: Give salvation to kings and miracles to a multitude of advisers.

As always, the Israeli Left has wrapped itself in gloom, mourning the loss of the last peace deal. The Left's pessimism has accompanied the rebirth of Israel for decades. It was already present in the Brit Shalom organization, which favored binationalism, before the state was established. My advice to left-wing leaders is to save their despondence; they'll need it later on. When the Left laments and the Right builds, the future of Israel is assured for many generations to come.

The great majority of Israeli citizens supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's firm and just stance on the right of Jews to security in their ancient homeland. What the leadership needs now is historical vision, beyond the endless, mundane, everyday tasks of running a complex state. Realizing the vision of reviving Israel in its land is a thousand times more important than any attempt to win favor among the international community. Nobody will ever ride Jewish people into the ground again. The reason we came home after thousands of years was to seize our own destiny's plow, refusing to hand it over to foreign hands, certainly not the European Union, which has time and again proved both its shortsightedness and its hatred for Israel and its policymakers.

A clear sign that the Kerry drama is coming to a close is the return to the burning issue of recruiting yeshiva students to the army. When the external pressure is off, the Jews immediately relapse to internal wrangling. Maybe the time has come to turn that fighting spirit toward creativity and development. Peace between brothers should come before peace between enemies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obama's Favorite Gini

The left will never support the solution to income inequality.

By Daniel Henninger

In one of his most major "major" speeches late last year, Barack Obama said income inequality "is the defining issue of our time." Or any other time.

Those of us who are yoked forever to the policy debates recall plowing this ground in the 1980s, before much of the Obama base was born. This year's panjandrum festival at Davos called income disparity the biggest risk facing the world in 2014 (which must have let Iranian President Hasan Rouhani smile himself to sleep in his Swiss hotel).

We will arbitrarily date the start of the modern income-equality debate to 1912, when an intense Italian statistician named Corrado Gini invented the "Gini coefficient," which ever since has been the universal mathematical measure of income equality anywhere. Gini also wrote "The Scientific Basis of Fascism," but his coefficient survived among economists.

It was Gini's coefficient that Mr. Obama invoked without citation in his speech when he said "statistics show" that income inequality in the U.S. ranks with Jamaica and Argentina. Mr. Obama then said France, statistically, has greater income mobility than the U.S. More on French equality in a moment. Politics first.

Take about $4 trillion from the top 40% of families and give it to the bottom 60%—voilà, no more inequality.

President Obama has talked a lot recently about reducing income inequality. Yet he neither acknowledges how much money the government is redistributing, nor how much more would be needed to close the income gap. Perhaps that's because the project would require redistribution on a staggering scale.

That's the upshot of two separate studies published in November 2013 by the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Foundation. While they used slightly different methodologies, each study measured the amount of existing redistribution by the federal government—by comparing how much Americans get back in total federal spending (everything from transfer programs to national defense) to how much they pay in all federal taxes (everything from income taxes to excise taxes). Both studies show that the federal tax-and-spending system already is extremely progressive and redistributive.

Looking at prerecession data for non-elderly households in 2006 in "The Distribution of Federal Spending and Taxes in 2006," the CBO found that those in the bottom fifth, or quintile, of the income scale received $9.62 in federal spending for every $1 they paid in federal taxes of all kinds. This isn't surprising, since people with low incomes pay little in taxes but receive a lot of transfers.

Nor is it surprising that households in the top fifth received 17 cents in federal spending for every $1 they paid in all federal taxes. High-income households hand over a disproportionate amount in taxes relative to what they get back in spending.

Enlarge Image

Corbis

What is surprising is that the middle quintile—the middle class—also got more back from government than they paid in taxes. These households received $1.19 in government spending for every $1 they paid in federal taxes.

When we add up who paid what and who got what for the 91 million non-elderly households in 2006, the CBO's data indicate that federal tax-and-spending redistributed $1.2 trillion from the top 40% of households to their fellow Americans. Half of this amount benefited the bottom 60% of non-elderly households while the rest benefited seniors.

The Tax Foundation study, "The Distribution of Tax and Spending Policies in the United States," used postrecession 2012 data for all 150 million U.S. families (as opposed to households). It put the amount of federal redistribution from top earners at $1.5 trillion, with state and local governments redistributing another $500 billion. These results don't include the latest hike in top marginal tax rates to 39.6% from 35% or Affordable Care Act subsidies.

The overwhelming conclusion from both studies is that, as a group, the vast majority of Americans receive more back from government in spending than they pay in taxes. Even this large amount of redistribution falls far short of closing the inequality gap. So how much more redistribution would be needed to make every family equal? Quite a lot, it turns out.

According to the Tax Foundation study's estimate, the average market income for American families in 2012 was $81,600. (Market income includes wages, business and capital-gains income, and health and retirement benefits, but excludes transfers.) A typical American family in the lower income quintile, on the other hand, has an average market income of $9,560 and gets $21,158 more in spending than they pay in taxes. Thus we would need to give them roughly $50,882 more in federal transfers to raise their overall income to the average market income of U.S. families.

A family in the middle quintile has on average a market income of $56,885 and gets $7,376 more in spending than they pay in taxes. (Although these families are in the middle fifth of the population, their average incomes are actually below the national average.) So to raise their overall income to the U.S. market-income average, the government would need to give them $17,339 in transfer payments above what they are currently getting.

Naturally, for families in the first three quintiles to gain, those in the top two quintiles have to lose. Families in the fourth quintile have an average market income of $100,240 and pay $4,089 more in taxes than they receive in spending. Thus, we would need to take an additional $14,551 from these families to bring their market incomes down to the national average.

Families in the top fifth have an average market income of $311,400 and pay $65,573 more in taxes than they receive in spending. Thus we would need to take an additional $164,227 from them in higher taxes to lower their market incomes to the national average.

Since there are millions of families in each quintile, these numbers begin to add up. To guarantee everyone in America an average income, the federal government would have to take an additional $2.4 trillion in income from the top 40% of families—in one year. This would bring the total amount of income redistributed from the top to nearly $4 trillion.

Many people believe the "rich" can afford to pay higher taxes since they command a disproportionate share of the nation's income. However, the current amount of redistribution already takes 21% of the top quintile's income. That would have to soar to 74% to make every family in America "average."

These are the missing pieces of the current inequality debate. To recap: Current federal tax-and-spending policies combine to redistribute $1.5 trillion each year from the top 40% of Americans to the bottom 60%. To close the income gap to zero would require $4 trillion.

The questions to those who say we should do more to narrow the income gap are: Where on that continuum should we aim, and what policies would achieve these goals without bringing the economy to its knees?

Mr. Hodge is president of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group in Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) The Obama Crony in Charge of Your Medical Records

By Michelle Malkin

Who is Judy Faulkner? Chances are, you don't know her -- but her politically connected, taxpayer-subsidized electronic medical records company may very well know you. Top Obama donor and billionaire Faulkner is founder and CEO of Epic Systems, which will soon store almost half of all Americans' health information.

If the crony odor and the potential for abuse that this "epic" arrangement poses don't chill your bones, you ain't paying attention.

As I first noted last year before the IRS witch hunts and DOJ journalist snooping scandals broke out, Obama's federal electronic medical records (EMR) mandate is government malpractice at work. The stimulus law provided a whopping $19 billion in "incentives" (read: subsidies) to force hospitals and medical professionals into converting from paper to electronic record-keeping systems. Penalties kick in next year for any provider who fails to comply with the one-size-fits-all edict.

Obamacare bureaucrats claimed the government's EMR mandate would save money and modernize health care. As of December 2012, $4 billion had already gone out to 82,535 professionals and 1,474 hospitals; a total of $6 billion will be doled out by 2016. What have taxpayers and health care consumers received in return from this boondoggle? After hyping the alleged benefits for nearly a decade, the RAND Corporation finally admitted in January that its cost-savings predictions of $81 billion a year -- used repeatedly to support the Obama EMR mandate -- were, um, grossly overstated.

Among many factors, the researchers blamed "lack of interoperability" of records systems for the failure to bring down costs. And that is a funny thing, because it brings us right back to Faulkner and her well-connected company. You see, Epic Systems -- the dominant EMR giant in America -- is notorious for its lack of interoperability. Faulkner's closed-end system represents antiquated, hard drive-dependent software firms that refuse to share data with doctors and hospitals using alternative platforms. Health IT analyst John Moore of Chilmark Research, echoing many industry observers, wrote in April that Epic "will ultimately hinder health care organizations' ability to rapidly innovate."

Question: If these subsidized data-sharing systems aren't built to share data to improve health outcomes, why exactly are we subsidizing them? And what exactly are companies like Faulkner's doing with this enhanced power to consolidate and control Americans' private health information? It's a recipe for exactly the kind of abuse that's at the heart of the IRS and DOJ scandals.

As I reported previously, a little-noticed HHS Inspector General's report issued last fall exposed how no one is actually verifying whether the transition from paper to electronic is improving patient outcomes and health services. No one is actually guarding against GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). No one is checking whether recipients of the EMR incentives are receiving money redundantly (e.g., raking in payments when they've already converted to electronic records). And no one is actually protecting private data from fraud, theft or exploitation.

But while health IT experts and concerned citizens balk, money talks. Epic employees donated nearly $1 million to political parties and candidates between 1995 and 2012 -- 82 percent of it to Democrats. The company's top 10 PAC recipients are all Democratic or left-wing outfits, from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (nearly $230,000) to the DNC Services Corporation (nearly $175,000) and the America's Families First Action Fund Democratic super-PAC ($150,000). The New York Times reported in February that Epic and other large firms spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for the Obama EMR "giveaway."
Brandon Glenn of Medical Economics observes "it's not a coincidence" that Epic's sales "have been skyrocketing in recent years, up to $1.2 billion in 2011, double what they were four years prior."

It's also no coincidence, as a famous Democratic presidential candidate once railed, that the deepest-pocketed donors "are often granted the greatest access, and access is power in Washington." That same candidate, Barack Obama, named billionaire Democratic donor Faulkner as the only industry representative on the federal panel overseeing the $19 billion EMR "incentives" program from which her company benefits grandly.

The foxes are guarding the Obamacare henhouse. The IRS vultures are circling overhead. The shadow of tyranny and the stench of corruption are unmistakable. If you see something, say something. BOLO is our watchword.

5a)Famous Presidential Lies

Written by, To The Point News

LBJ:

We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin )

Nixon:

I am not a crook

GHW Bush:

Read my lips - No New Taxes

Clinton:

I did not have sex with that woman... Miss Lewinski

GW Bush:

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

Obama:

I will have the most transparent administration in history.
The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs.
I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.
The IRS is not targeting anyone.
It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.
If I had a son.
I will put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division, conflict and cynicism".
You didn't build that!
I will restore trust in Government.
The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk
It's not my red line - it is the world's red line.
Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.
We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.
I am not spying on American citizens.
Obama Care will be good for America .
You can keep your family doctor.
Premiums will be lowered by $2500.
If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.
It's just like shopping at Amazon.
I knew nothing about "Fast and Furious" gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups.
I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi .
I have never known my uncle from Kenya who is in the country illegally and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago.
And, I have never lived with that uncle. He finally admitted (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.

And the biggest one of all:

"I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America ."

I believe we have a winner!

5b)Terrorist planned attack

in order to be imprisoned

and receive PA salary

Terrorist's testimony to police following his arrest

confirms PMW contention that PA salaries to terrorists

both reward and encourage terror

Imprisoned Palestinian terrorist Husni Najjar explained to Israeli Police that he planned a second terror attack in order to be captured and imprisoned by Israel a

second time, so that he would receive the salaries the Palestinian Authority pays to prisoners while in jail and following their release. In his signed statement given to the police following his second arrest, a copy of which is in the possession of Palestinian Media Watch, he explains that the money he received from the PA as salary during his first prison term amounted to only 45,000 shekels. However, the salary he would receive following his second prison term and subsequent release would leave him with "135,000 shekels." "And thus I would cover my debts," the terrorist explained his motive for planning the attack.

The testimony of this Palestinian terrorist confirms PMW's contention that the PA's policy of paying high salaries to terrorists during their imprisonment in Israel and after their release not only rewards terror, but also constitutes a motivation for terror.

In his statement, the terrorist showed precise knowledge of the payments the PA gives to those arrested for terror. He explained that PA law grants terrorists imprisoned for more than five years a salary of 4,000 shekels a month, which continues for three years following their release from prison. This is in addition to monthly salary payments while in prison. The terrorist explained that because his first imprisonment for planning a suicide terror attack (which was foiled) lasted less than five years, it was not enough to prompt the 4,000 shekels monthly salary upon release. He therefore planned another attack in order to reach a total of five years in prison, which would entitle him to the additional salary upon his second release, which would cover his debts, he explained:

Prisoner Najjar: "And after [my] release [from prison]... I had a bank account with 45,000 shekels from [my] salary from the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs... and there remained a deficit of 30,000 shekels for the wedding... I decided to arrange an imaginary plan for the Israeli Shabak [Israel's General Security Service] so that I would be arrested... After I would spend five years [in prison] I would receive a salary of about 4,000 shekels [upon release], and this amount would be for three years. That means there would be a total amount of 135,000 shekels (the correct amount would equal 144,000 shekels - Ed.) and then I would cover my debts."

[Testimony of suspect, Israel Police interrogation transcript,

Aug. 18, 2013]

Husni Najjar is currently in prison awaiting trial. It should be noted that the terrorist prisoner is already receiving a PA salary, since PA law stipulates that the salary "will be paid to the prisoner from the date of his arrest." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 15, 2011]

Middle East and Other Musings

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Back From Orlando!

Iran threatens to humiliate us with their toy fleet. (See 1 below.)

Summary

Analysis

An Armada of Two

The left will never support the solution to income inequality.

Related Video

Take about $4 trillion from the top 40% of families and give it to the bottom 60%—voilà, no more inequality.

No comments:

Blog Archive

About Me