Obama: ‘ A supporter suggests I proclaim a State of Emergency”

Did a supporter suggest Obama  proclaim a State of Emergency or was it Valerie Jarrett to have his way? Or was it a stream of consciousness running through his head? At least not for now Mr.President?

“I was in a meeting earlier today and somebody asked, you know, Mr. President, what can you do, these folks, they just — all they do is just oppose whatever you propose even if they used to be for it, now they’re against it; if you said the sky was blue, they’d say it was green; they deny the facts, they don’t have any ideas for growing the economy or helping the middle class — maybe you just need to announce a state of emergency. I said, well, now, I’m not going to do that, that’s not how the Constitution works.”

In 2014, President Obama has made much of his pen-and-a-phone strategy to accomplish his goals in the face of what he calls an “unprecedented pattern of obstruction” from Republicans in Congress. Apparently the president’s supporters are on board with the idea of unilateral executive action. At a meeting last Friday, a supporter of the president asked about the possibility of “a state of emergency.” The president relayed the story to another groups of supporters at a Democratic National Committee event later in the day at a private residence in Purchase, New York.

Of course, “how the Constitution works” is at the heart of the dispute between the president and Republicans in the House who recently voted to move forward with a lawsuit against the president for overstepping his constitutional authority. Interestingly, regardless of how seriously President Obama took his supporter’s question, he went on to tell his audience “there’s actually a solution to this that our Founders envisioned.” Ed: Of course we know he prefers the pen and phone.

More over at the Weekly Standard

Wishing everyone a Happy Labor Day!

Here is wishing everyone a great Labor Day. Hope your day is filled with pleasure and happiness with friends and family. Always important to keep a perspective on our lives and that which does bring us joy.

I chose the song “Money” by Pink Floyd. It brings to mind the early days of my working career when $5 Bucks an hour sounded pretty good!

A Tribute to the Defenders of Christendom

Sundays’s Respite. Prayers for all those who are suffering under persecution of their faith.

Come, my brethren! Take courage and stand beneath our banner! The darkness closes in, and we are the only true defenders of the Light! March to victory and arise triumphant!

Operation Crusade [A Tribute To The Defenders Of Christendom]

Operation Crusade…….A tribute to the Crusader Knights……The Order of the Knights Templar……The Order of the Teutonic Knights…….The Order of the Hospitaller Knights

 

Candidate remarks that are most remarkable!

Here is something on the lighter side for a Saturday. A couple of candidate’s remarks and ads that, well, are interesting to say the least. Here we go.

The Montana Senate race has been perhaps the most interesting contest thus far in the 2014 Senate election cycle. Original nominee, and sitting interim Senator, John Walsh was busted for plagiarism on a 14 page (!) Master’s thesis*. Sensing that this might be a liability on the campaign trail, he was replaced with single term Montana State Representative Amanda Curtis. She’s already come under fire for some rather unfortunate statements from her days as a Blogger.

There are a lot of things Ms. Curtis doesn’t seem to know, such as her positions on major issues.  From a CNN profile:  “When asked her position on the situation in Iraq, Curtis told CNN, ‘Give me a little more time.’ On the border crisis, ‘I’ll need more time, you know only 11 days ago I was painting my storm windows.’”  What she does know is that she’s against “the one percent” and hates Paul Ryan’s budget.

…she’s the kind of Leftist who has no problem with Revolutionary Socialism, even if it means roughing a few people up and destroying some property along the way, and at one point, her Facebook profile photo was of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, the head of the Communist Party USA and recipient of a state funeral from the Soviet Union.

H/T: and more at RedState 

 

In case you haven’t caught this one from Amanda, I will throw it in as well. We might just catch this Senate seat!

I have added A Day at the Races to my blog located at the upper right hand corner called Looking Ahead 2014. They carry posts on some of the little covered races as well as some of the major ones. I caught this one from them. Wander over for the full read.

From

Out of Africa, Into Arkansas

About Ebola: it’s not just Republicans playing that card.

In Arkansas’ increasingly contentious Senate race, Democratic incumbent Pryor’s campaign is out with a new tv spot tying his Republican challenger, Rep. Tom Cotton, to the West African scourge.

Pryor’s not accusing Cotton of carrying the disease, per se. Actually, it’s more like being an enabler — for being one of 29 House members in January 2013 to vote against HR 307, aka “The Pandemic And All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act” (actually Cotton voted in favor of final passage of the bill).

The Cotton campaign’s response: “Senator Pryor’s desperation is comical. In Senator Pryor’s world, he doesn’t have to take responsibility for rubber-stamping the Obama agenda over 90% of the time, but wants Arkansans to believe Tom Cotton is responsible for everything from Ebola to crabgrass and male-pattern baldness.”

Makes you wonder when and where we’ll hit bottom in this election cycle.

Here’s Pryor’s ad (no surgical mask required to watch it):

Obama reneges on U.S. Ukraine “Security Assurances” after giving up Nukes

Obama made it clear yesterday at his Presser, that he had no intention to honor the Security Assurances commitment made to Ukraine. In fact, he flew the doors wide open for Putin to march forward. If you want to know why Iran will never give up their Nuclear ambitions, this is a prime example. This is why we cannot be trusted. It was the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia that signed an accord with Ukraine and made a commitment to them, understood as “Security Assurances” in return for them to giving up their Nukes. So let us look back what was said just a few months ago when Putin marched into the Crimea Peninsula. Bet they sure wished they had those nukes now. They would still be a Sovereign Nation. Bet Saddam Hussein had managed to keep them. Same for Syria. The world would look much different now. So let’s take a look.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the United States of America of December 4, 2009 confirmed their commitment.

“There are very clear legal obligations that are at risk,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today in Paris.

Mar 5, 2014 4:34 PM

For a brief period, Ukraine was the world’s third-largest nuclear power.

It gave up thousands of nuclear warheads inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a 1994 promise from the U.S. and Russia not to use force or threaten military action against the newly independent nation, a pledge Russian President Vladimir Putin repudiated yesterday after his troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.

The 20-year-old Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by the U.S., Russia, the U.K. and Ukraine, has moved to center stage in the standoff over the country’s Crimea region. Beyond the immediate crisis, Putin’s actions may have lasting consequences for future security talks, including efforts to further reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

“There are very clear legal obligations that are at risk,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today in Paris.

The U.S. says Putin violated the accord by sending forces into Crimea and threatening to intervene elsewhere in Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians.

The Budapest agreement was considered a major diplomatic accomplishment two decades ago, when the U.S. and Russia shared an interest in limiting the number of nuclear-armed states and reducing the risk that former Soviet weapons would fall into the wrong hands.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 left Ukraine with a large nuclear arsenal — about 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads designed to strike the U.S. and 2,500 shorter-range nuclear weapons.

In 1994, the country’s leaders agreed under pressure from Russia and the U.S. to give up all of them in return for a pledge to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory. Ukraine completed the transfer of all its nuclear warheads to Russia in May 1996.

From Bloomberg March 2014

And boy did we shaft Qaddafi

 

In US-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away

The cache of nuclear technology that Libya turned over to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors in early 2004 was large — far larger than American intelligence experts had expected. There were more than 4,000 centrifuges for producing enriched uranium. There were blueprints for how to build a nuclear bomb — missing some critical components but good enough to get the work started.

The haul was so large that President Bush, with photographers in tow, flew to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to celebrate a rare victory against nuclear proliferation. He briefly noted the success in his recent memoir, “Decision Points,” saying that with the surrender of the weapons Libya “resumed normal relations with the world.” Mr. Bush lifted restrictions on doing business with Libya and praised Colonel Qaddafi, saying his actions had “made our country and our world safer.

In Libya, the story was told differently. In an interview with The New York Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a documentary, “Nuclear Jihad,” Seif Qaddafi complained that the West never followed through on many of its promises.

 Syria and Iraq.

Then we have Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bet the wished they had finished their Nuclear ambitions. But Israel took care of business’

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor – BBC News

The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: “The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose.”

It acted now because it believed the reactor would be completed shortly – either at the beginning of July or the beginning of September 1981.

The Israelis criticised the French and Italians for supplying Iraq with nuclear materials and pledged to defend their territory at all costs.

The Attack on Syria’s al-Kibar Nuclear Facility – inFocus

Israel’s September 6, 2007, attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear facility surprised the world—Syria most of all. The operation, executed by the Israeli Air Force (IAF), was reminiscent of Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, but with two noticeable differences. First, Israel remained silent following the al-Kibar bombing, while in 1981 it boasted publicly about the Iraq strike even before the pilots had returned. Second, whereas the international community knew of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plans in 1981, few were aware of the extent of Syria’s nuclear program in 2007.

The IAF’s attack raises two important questions: What was Syria hiding? Why did Israel feel compelled to launch a military strike? Subsequent investigations have painted a clearer picture of what took place at al-Kibar.

Finally, we have Lerch. This was back in March when Crimea was taken over by Russia. No mention of the “Assurances Agreement” which was part of the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Russian Cyber Attack on Wall Street. Obama wanted to give them our Missile Codes

Let’s enjoy our reset with Russia and recall how Obama planned to give away our Missile Defense codes. But shucks, Looks like our new best friend just commenced a cyber attack on Wall Street. I love showing Clinton and Obama as the jackasses they are.

Wouldn’t it have been nice for Europe to have a Missile Defense System?

FBI investigates alleged Russian cyber attack on Wall Street

Major US financial institutions reportedly targeted by sophisticated high-level cyber-attack amid suspicions that operation was launched in retaliation for sanctions over Ukraine.

The FBI is investigating whether Russian hackers staged a cyber-attack on major Wall Street businesses this month in retaliation for US sanctions imposed over Ukraine, Bloomberg News reported last night.

The Russian hackers allegedly stole large amounts of sensitive data from JP Morgan Chase and at least one other bank, according to sources familiar with the investigation. The FBI is also reportedly looking into possible links to recent hacking of large European financial institutions.
More at Telegraph UK

Just two short years ago, Obama cancels efforts for a missile Defense for Europe. Because, we had this restart thing that was working swell for Russia, not so much for the United States. Do we really want Clinton in the WH?

Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Why does The Obama Administration Want to Give Moscow our Missile Defense Codes?
The key is Obama has to make it look good that the  negotiations with Putin have paid off and that he has not been played for a fool.”
Reuters report on a Congressional hearing about the Obama Administration considering giving Putin’s Russia access to our Missile Defense Codes. 

The Reuters report, “Obama mulls giving Moscow data on missile defense”  had these disturbing revelations from   testimony by   Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary  for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy  Dr. Bradley H. Roberts at hearings before the House Armed Services Committee:

The Obama administration disclosed on Tuesday that it is considering sharing some classified U.S. data as part of an effort to allay Russian concerns about a controversial antimissile shield.

The administration is continuing negotiations begun under former President George W. Bush on a defense technical cooperation agreement with Moscow that could include limited classified data, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Brad Roberts told a House of Representatives’ Armed Services subcommittee.

He gave no details on the sort of data that might be shared under such an agreement.

Russia strongly opposes the U.S.-engineered bulwark being built in and around Europe against ballistic missiles that could be fired by countries like Iran.

We asked a missile defense analyst for his views on these revelations.  He wrote:

Bush never gave any data to the Russians–when will we learn that when the Russians complain and whine, they want something and they want stuff that is valuable……so caving to them always will hurt US security. This is the issue. Obama desperately wants a summit with the Russians in Chicago in May following the Seoul summit.  However, he has nothing to announce.  Reset doesn’t seem to be working.   There is no substance to this story unless it is a leak to see what might happen if the administration does pass such information to the Russians.  Congress appears opposed, but POTUS wants to have a photo op with  a communiqué and better video for the convention and campaign. The key is Obama has to make it look good that the  negotiations with Putin have paid off and that he has not been played for a fool.

H/T: New English Review

Published on Mar 26, 2012
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — President Barack Obama told Russia’s leader Monday that he would have more flexibility after the November election to deal with the contentious issue of missile defense, a candid assessment of political reality that was picked up by a microphone without either leader apparently knowing.

“This is my last election,” Obama is heard telling outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Obama blames U.S. for rise of terrorist threat by “feeding extremism”

I admit it. I watched Zero address the American Legion yesterday. I had some degree of hope that the Legion members might set Obama back on his heels a bit. He snoozed the members with his usual non-emotional tone, and they remained somewhat polite. All and all his remarks were ridiculous and made little sense. This was the high point. Of course, it is our fault for the terrorism, Forget that Jefferson and Adams held the view that these Muslim fellows would always be a problem

Via Breitbart:

Monday at the American Legion’s 96th National Convention, President Barack Obama said the answer for ISIS’s “evolving terrorist threat” is not for America to “occupy” countries and end up “feeding extremism.” [...]

“The answer is not to send in large-scale military deployments that over stretch our military, and lead for us occupying countries for a long period of time and end up feeding extremism.”

Part of an earlier post:

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the Middle East

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 756 other followers

%d bloggers like this: