Archive for the ‘Barak Obama Super Star Part Three’ Category

$70,000 Pakistani ad buy blamed obscure anti-Muhammad film

JERUSALEM – As the House Oversight Committee hears from witnesses presenting a chronological timeline that starkly contrasts with initial statements by the Obama administration on the Benghazi attacks, it is instructive to recall how the administration spent $70,000 in taxpayer funds on an ad denouncing an anti-Muhammad film.

The ad aired on Pakistani television amid White House claims that the Benghazi attacks were caused by popular protests against an obscure Muhammad film released on YouTube.

It would later emerge that no such protests took place and that the Obama administration almost immediately had evidence the Benghazi attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The ads reportedly aired on seven Pakistani networks. They also came in response to protests in Pakistan that were reportedly a reaction to the film. However, it was the claim of popular protests in Benghazi at the time that garnered the biggest public reaction from the White House.

The Sept. 19, 2012, ads feature Obama and Clinton making statements against the film in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, which transpired one week prior.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation of respect, that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Obama says in the ad, which is stamped “paid content.”

Clinton then denies any official U.S. involvement in producing the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

“We absolutely reject its contents,” she says.

The Obama administration blamed the YouTube video for what it claimed were popular protests that engulfed the Benghazi mission.

On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, three days before the ads were released, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five morning television programs to discuss the White House response to the Benghazi attacks. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”

Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.”

Still, other Obama administration officials made similar claims about the film being behind the Benghazi attacks.

Scores of news reports, video and intelligence evidence that was immediately available to the government had demonstrated there were no popular protests outside the Benghazi facility and that the attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The claims about the anti-Muhammad film being behind the Benghazi attacks are also now called into question by a top State Department official who said he knew immediately the attacks were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent, according to interview transcripts released Sunday.

“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go,” said Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the No. 2 U.S. official in Libya at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”

According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.”

Reacting to Rice’s television interviews blaming the anti-Muhammad film, Hicks stated, “I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.”

In testimony yesterday, Hicks said he was “stunned,” his “jaw dropped” and he was “embarrassed” when Rice blamed the terror attack on an Internet video.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he stated.

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obama-used-taxpayer-funds-in-benghazi-cover-up/#ZkKPwzZetYchcI4e.99

Yesterday
I had an appointment to see the urologist for a Prostate
exam. Of course I was a bit on edge because all my
friends have either gone under the knife or had those pellets
implanted…….

The waiting room was filled with patients.

As I approached the receptionist’s desk, I noticed that
the
receptionist
was a large unfriendly woman who looked like a
Sumo
wrestler.

I gave her my name.

In a very loud voice, the receptionist
said, “YES,
I HAVE YOUR NAME HERE;

YOU WANT TO SEE THE DOCTOR ABOUT IMPOTENCE,
RIGHT?”

All the patients in the waiting room snapped their heads around to
look at me, a now very embarrassed man. But as usual, I
recovered quickly, and in an equally loud voice
replied,

‘NO, I’VE COME TO INQUIRE ABOUT A SEX CHANGE
OPERATION,

BUT
I DON’T WANT THE SAME DOCTOR THAT DID YOURS.”

The room erupted in applause!

DO NOT MESS WITH OLD RETIRED GUYS

by Barry Secrest

Founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, dismissed discussion of GOP defections from his “no new taxes” pledge, and President Obama’s tax theories, as pure fantasy.

In a Tuesday interview with NPR’s “Morning Edition,” the conservative activist reinforced that support for his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” — which was signed by 95 percent of Republican congressmen earlier this month – is not waning. Norquist stated that Democrats’ openness to substantial spending cuts is like imagining a “pink unicorn.”

Norquist went on the defensive over the past few weeks after a few Republicans, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, appeared to be backtracking on their pledge to oppose any new taxes. He believes that the media stories about some Republicans possibly breaking their no-tax pledge are repeats of what was being reported two years ago.

“People are turning in the [same] homework for the second time,” he told NPR of the news media. But two years ago, Republicans concluded that President Obama and his fellow Democrats had not offered significant spending cuts. Norquist predicts the same will happen during negotiations to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

Norquist went on to condemn Obama’s economic and tax theories as “ridiculous left-wing fantasy.”

“If we’d had a Reagan-sized recovery instead of an Obama-sized recovery over the last 3 1/2 years there would be 11-plus [more] million Americans at work,” said Norquist. “Obama has put his ridiculous left-wing fantasy theories of Keynesianism above the lives of 11 million families in this country.”

President Obama’s tax theories, Norquist stated, have been an “extremely bad thing,” and that taxation as a whole is having a fundamentally negative impact on Americans.

“There’s no reason to raise taxes, taxes should be lower,” Norquist told host Steve Inskeep. “The problem we have is that government spends too much — not that taxes are too low.”

“Obama has a theory and his theory is wrong – that if government takes people’s money and spends it you magically have twice as much money.”

President Obama has spent lots of tax money trying to make electric cars practical and popular. It has been, by economic “measures, a failure.

We aren’t hearing much from him on the subject during the re-election campaign, so we’ve taken the liberty of writing a new speech for him:
Without a miracle breakthrough in technology, the promise I’ve made to put one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 isn’t going to happen. I doubt I’ll get halfway there. It’s not that I didn’t try.
I still think I was right to give Tampa and other farsighted communities money to install charging stations. You have to start somewhere. Those chargers will be used.
And I don’t apologize for spending billions of dollars on battery research and direct aid and loans to selected automakers. Hey, it might have worked. But I see now that my plan to spend another $7.5 billion over the next seven years to push electric vehicles is likely to be a waste of your taxes.
I had hoped tax incentives of $7,500 per car would get enough folks to buy them to get the price down. It hasn’t worked out, so earlier this year I proposed upping the rebate to $10,000. L see now that’s a bad idea.
These cars remain quite expensive. The average income of folks buying an electric car is
$148,346 a year. Unless you pay $7,500 or more in, taxes, you can’t use the full tax benefit, which
means you’ll pay a lot more for your electric car than someone with a higher income. That’s not
fair.
Think of what the $7.5 billion we plan to spend in incentives, subsidized loans and tax rebates on
my electric dream could buy. Look, compared to the federal deficit, that’s not much money. But consider it in terms of a thrifty new car like the gasoline-powered Nissan Versa.
For the amount of money I’m planning to throw at electric cars and batteries, I could buy enough new Versas to stretch, bumper touching bumper, from Tampa all the way to Atlanta. In fact, I could fill up four lanes with cars like that, bumper to bumper, from Tampa to Atlanta, for $7.5 billion.
The electric car remains a work in progress. Plenty of research has been going on. People are tinkering in their garages. Scientists are at work in big labs.
The first modern electric cars by Chevrolet were on the road 15 years ago, then recalled. I think about how the first satellite went up in 1957 and 12 years later men landed on the moon. I don’t know why it’s taking so long to electrify our auto fleet.
I’m frustrated about that, but delighted there are a few practical all-electric cars on the market. If you don’t have to go far in your daily travels, I urge you to buy one. If money is no object, you can get a very fast one with interstate range.
I still hope that one day private industry will produce enough electric cars and batteries to create millions of jobs, save consumers money, help the environment, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
But don’t count on more taxpayers’ help. We will still support some research but will be phasing out the direct subsidies of car makers, battery producers and consumers. Let’s see what the market comes up with.
This is a speech that hurts me to give. But, you know, facing reality is a big part of good leadership.
This is a Tampa Bay Tribune editorial