WASHINGTON – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.
“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.
“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,”…>>Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Story<<
The greatest gift that Obama has given the Iranians has been the time and space they need to finish building nuclear weapons. It should be clear to Israel at this point that they alone must take out Iran. The United States, led by Obama, has no plans to do it and indeed will not do it.
PM Netanyahu…are you listening?
From Washington Free Beacon: Iran plans to build many new nuclear plants with atomic reactors along its coastlines with the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, Iran’s top nuclear official announced on Thursday.
The announcement comes just a week after Western nuclear negotiators claimed that Iran was giving ground in talks aimed at ending Tehran’s contested enrichment program.
Iranian leaders, however, have remained defiant in the face of talks, announcing on Thursday that Tehran will build “enough atomic reactors to generate a total of 20,000 megawatts of electricity by 2020,” according to the country’s state-run Fars News Agency.
Top Iranian leaders and those involved with negotiations have also been quoted in the Persian language press as rejecting key details of the proposed nuclear deal.
Iran also announced that it was China’s largest oil supplier in the month of September.
“We are considering construction of power plants along the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea as well as the Central parts of Iran, but priority is given to the Persian Gulf coasts because we want to pave the way for [the construction of] water desalination facilities to supply drinking water for the Southern provinces of Iran,” Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), said Tuesday Fars reported.
At least 34 sites have already been designated for future nuclear power plants, according to Fars.
Additionally, Salehi announced just two days after nuclear negotiations ended that Russia would help Iran build new nuclear power plants across the country, according to Persian language press reports.
Salehi also suggested that Iran’s top nuclear negotiators lack the authority to agree to a deal with the West.
The IAEO, he claimed, also plays a role in Iran’s nuclear decision-making and would instruct negotiating officials, according to a Farsi-language Fars article translated by the Open Source Center.
Around 13,000 people are involved in Iran’s nuclear sector, according to Salehi, who also revealed that Russia could soon begin construction on a second nuclear power plant in Iran.
“We had a meeting [with Russians] at the beginning of this week regarding the signing of a protocol on the construction of the next power plant,” Salehi told Fars in Persian last week. “Once this protocol is prepared, Russia will start the constructing of another power pant in Bushehr.”
The latest power plant models “have been designed and are ready to be constructed, and the foundation of the next power plant is prepared in Bushehr,” where the Russians are helping Iran run final tests on another soon to be completed nuke plant, Salehi said.
Russia has helped Iran quicken its nuclear pace, according to Salehi.
“We worked with the Russians and it is a good opportunity, because it expedites our work and is not aimed at diminishing political pressure,” he said. Iran’s top nuclear negotiators have also been quoted in the Iranian press downplaying progress in talks.
Araqchi’s comments run against Western reports claiming substantive progress in the most recent round of negotiations. Iran’s main goal is to preserve its nuclear enrichment program, according to Araqchi.
“The country’s proposal presented in the latest talks between Tehran and world powers was aimed at protecting Iranian rights to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Tasnim reported this week.
“The defined goal is safeguarding Iran’s nuclear rights, both in terms of uranium enrichment and in [the] fuel production field,” Araqchi was quoted as saying.
Once the West is “assured” that Iran’s nuclear program is “peaceful,” the “sanctions would be totally lifted,” Araqchi claimed.
Iran reportedly presented to the West a “three-step plan” and promised to consider a proposal known as the “Additional Protocol,” which would make Iran subject to strict nuclear inspections, according to Tasnim.
Araqchi has also been telling Iranian lawmakers that the issue of Fordow, one of Iran’s top nuclear enrichment facilities, is not even on the negotiating agenda.
Araqchi reportedly told the West during talks that “Tehran would not stop uranium enrichment and that the closure of Fordow was not on the agenda of the Iranian negotiating team,” according to Iran’s Press TV.
Fordow has long been used by Iran to enrich uranium, the key element in a nuclear bomb. Iran has been producing 20 percent enriched uranium at the site for several months now, according to the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).
ISIS announced in a report late Thursday that Iran would have the ability to create weapons grade uranium by mid-2014, though its ability to produce a working nuclear weapons could come much sooner. source – Washington Free Beacon
Israel must do whats necessary to stop the bomb
Talks in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program are triggering fears within U.S. intelligence agencies that Israel is hardening its stance on Iran and could conduct a military attack to stave off what the Jewish state believes is a delaying tactic for Tehran to buy time to build nuclear weapons.
The clearest indicator of growing Israeli concerns, according to defense officials, is the recent large-scale Israeli air force drill Tuesday in the northern part of the country. The exercises along the northern border and over the Mediterranean were considered unusually large.
An Israeli defense source told Israel’s Walla! news outlet: “Changes have recently occurred in the Middle East. The [Israeli Defense Force] is preparing for those changes in both the closer and more distant perimeters, and yesterday’s exercise was intended to signal the IDF’s serious intention of dealing with those problems and thwarting them.”
Additionally, Israeli air forces conducted long-range fighter exercises last week involving in-flight refueling practice.
The talks in Geneva have produced press reports that the Obama administration is preparing to ease sanctions on Iran following conciliatory statements by Iranian Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. last month.
Israeli Minister of Strategic and Intelligence Affairs Yuval Steinitz, a confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Wednesday that Israel would welcome an agreement to end Iran’s nuclear arms program. But Israel remains concerned that “Geneva 2013 could become Munich 1938,” Mr. Steinitz said, referring to the agreement appeasing Nazi Germany’s seizure of Czech territory in the months before the outbreak of World War II. source – Washington Times
When Iran, in the next year or so, finally gets all the parts and pieces together to complete work on their nuclear arsenal, you will have one country and one man to thank for that accomplishment. America will be complicit in allowing Iran to build atomic weapons whose sole purpose is to launch them against Israel, and Barack Obama will be the architect of that evil deed.
From Telegraph UK: The world risks making a ‘historic mistake’ if it eases the pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, warned on the eve of crucial negotiations to resolve the crisis. source – Telegraph UK
From The Hill: The Obama administration said Monday it’s ready to “quickly” lift sanctions on Iran if the country answers the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. The comments on the eve of new negotiations in Geneva are at odds with the position of many lawmakers of both parties in Congress, who want to increase — not decrease — the pressure on Iran.
“We are quite ready to move,” a senior administration official told reporters ahead of the negotiations. “If they’re ready to go, we are ready to go. But it depends on what they put on the table.”
“I think that the core sanctions architecture that not only the United States but the entire international community has put in place … all can be addressed if Iran addresses all of our concerns and all of their obligations and responsibilities under the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and U.N. Security Council resolutions,” the official continued.
Asked if that meant that the administration is ready to move “quickly” if Iran does, the official answered: “Yes.” source – The Hill
#benghazicoverup – read the archive
On September 11, 2013, Charles Woods appeared on Fox News’s Hannity and read aloud four questions about Benghazi from a letter he’d sent to President Obama.
Woods, whose son, ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, was one of four Americans killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, added: “What we want are not just answers. We also want the truth.”
President Obama has now written in reply to Woods’ letter. This marks the president’s first response to direct questions about Benghazi since May of this year when he answered one question at a press conference. That particular question concerned aftermath “talking points,” not the attack itself.
Charles Woods’ questions for the president are very different. Rather than address post-attack spin control or even pre-attack security – as most press and politicians are wont to do – Woods’ questions for the president concern the attack itself.
These questions, which Woods would discuss later in September before the House Oversight Committee, are:
Why did the president not give “cross-border authority” to rescue the 30 Americans that needed to be rescued?
Cross-border authority is an order only the president can give to enable U.S. forces to cross an international border in action.
Who made the decision to “stand down,” and when and why was that decision made?
Woods told the House committee that while there is disagreement over whether an order to “stand down” was issued, credible evidence suggests that his son Ty and Ty’s fellow CIA security contractors, after registering the distress signal from the US compound under attack, were ordered to “stand down” not once but three times. In Charles Woods’ telling, it was after the third “stand down” order that Ty and his team disobeyed orders and finally left the CIA Annex to go rescue Americans, including Amb. Christopher Stephens, under fire at the compound.
Is it true that General Ham was relieved from duty for refusing to follow the order not to rescue?
Woods related to Congress that a general has told him that Carter Ham, then AFRICOM commander, was relieved of duty in the middle of the Benghazi attack. Immediately after the distress signal was relayed to Ham, and Ham was then told to stand down, Ham’s words, according to this general, were “Screw it.” “And within moments,” Woods recounted before the committee, “General Ham was relieved of his duty by an inferior officer.” Woods continued: “Now, the spin that was given by the administration was that this was a `pre-scheduled rotation’ of generals. Well, I think it’s an insult to the intelligence of the American community to say that a general in the middle of a battle would be relieved because of a `pre-scheduled rotation’ and especially by an inferior officer.”
Woods went on: “We need to have that direct testimony by General Ham — and it needs to be public so that the public, so that voters, can [assess] the credibility of who is telling the truth.” Woods added that the State Department report on Benghazi, also known as the ARB report, contradicts this claim about Ham, reporting on p. 37 that there was no denial of support by anyone in Washington. All the more reason for Congress to resolve this discrepancy by calling General Ham to testify in public testimony, Woods maintains, along with other witnesses who were actually on the ground, including “Ty’s friends.”
Woods’ final question for the president was father to father:
If the president’s child had been in Benghazi, would the rescue attempt have been more aggressive?
On September 27, Obama answered Woods with a five-paragraph letter. Four of the paragraphs are devoted to presidential boilerplate: “prayers,” “challenges,” “courage,” “security,” “justice,” “commitment,” and “service.”
One paragraph pertains to Woods’ questions about Benghazi.
On that tragic day, I directed my national security team to do everything possible to respond to the attacks against our people and facilities in Benghazi. The United States Government considered a range of options and deployed additional military capabilities, but as our military leaders have said, the military forces needed to carry out the type of operation you describe were not close enough to have made a difference. Please know that my actions would have been the same if the attack had been against my own family. The sad truth is that attacks happened so rapidly that U.S. forces could not arrive in time to prevent the loss of our brave Americans.
Notice there are no answers to Woods’ very specific operational questions. Not one. In fact, the only question Obama addresses is Woods father-to-father “child” question, which Obama broadens into a “family” answer to assert that his “actions would have been the same” regardless.
We know from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony before the Senate in February that after briefing President Obama about Benghazi, Panetta never heard from the president again during the attack. It’s hard to imagine that a commander-in-chief with a teenage daughter in Benghazi wouldn’t have checked in at least once with his SecDef to find out whether she had been rescued yet. But that’s just conjecture.
We know for a fact, however, that President Obama’s other answers to Charles Woods are either hotly disputed, demonstrably false, or an illogical evasion.
“On that tragic day, I directed my national security team to do everything possible to respond to the attacks against our people and facilities in Benghazi.”
There is no evidence of such a presidential directive. Nor is there evidence it was carried out.
“The United States Government considered a range of options and deployed additional military capabilities”
But not during the attack. Not a single Pentagon asset was “in motion before the attack concluded,” as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put it on questioning both Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, both of whom could only point to the aircraft that were dispatched to evacuate survivors after the attack.
“but as our military leaders have said, the military forces needed to carry out the type of operation you describe were not close enough to have made a difference.”
This remains one of Benghazi’s disputed points. Defense of the Obama line, though, includes such hard-to-believe statements as when Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey declared to the Senate that it could have taken up to 20 hours to get an F-16 from Aviano, Italy to Libya.
“Please know that my actions would have been the same if the attack had been against my own family.”
Hard to imagine, but impossible to know.
“The sad truth is that attacks happened so rapidly that U.S. forces could not arrive in time to prevent the loss of our brave Americans.”
However often we hear this line, it makes no sense. When the Benghazi compound came under attack on September 11, 2012 at around 5 PM Washington time, there was, of course, no projected end-time, nor could there have been. No one knew or could have known that the fighting would span roughly eight hours. Not a single Pentagon asset, and not a single NATO asset, however, was deployed by the Obama administration to rescue Americans as the attack unfolded.
Why not? We still don’t know.
President Obama’s letter to Charles Woods provides more answers—but not the truth. source – Breitbart
Obama’s Groundhog Day nightmare for the American people
For four years now, we have been telling you and telling you, over and over, the astonishing parallels between the rise of Adolf Hitler and the rise of Barack Obama. We mapped out 13 similarities between Hitler and Obama that make our case clearly and concise. Now Bloomberg today puts out a story that Obama’s government would be the ONLY nation since Nazi Germany to declare default. Are you surprised…not even a little? Didn’t think you would be. Germany’s past is America’s future.
From Bloomberg: Reneging on its debt obligations would make the U.S. the first major Western government to default since Nazi Germany 80 years ago.
Germany unilaterally ceased payments on long-term borrowings on May 6, 1933, three months after Adolf Hitler was installed as Chancellor. The default helped cement Hitler’s power base following years of political instability as the Weimar Republic struggled with its crushing debts.
“These are generally catastrophic economic events,” said Professor Eugene N. White, an economics historian at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “There is no happy ending.”
The debt reparations piled onto Germany, which in 1913 was the world’s third-biggest economy, sparked the hyperinflation, borrowings and political deadlock that brought the Nazis to power, and the default. It shows how excessive debt has capricious results, such as the civil war and despotism that ravaged Florence after England’s Edward III refused to pay his obligations from the city-state’s banks in 1339, and the Revolution of 1789 that followed the French Crown’s defaults in 1770 and 1788.
Failure by the world’s biggest economy to pay its debt in an interconnected, globalized world risks an array of devastating consequences that could lay waste to stock markets from Brazil to Zurich and bring the $5 trillion market in Treasury-backed loans to a halt. Borrowing costs would soar, the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency would be in doubt and the U.S. and world economies would risk plunging into recession — and potentially depression.
Senate leaders of both parties are negotiating to avert a U.S. default after a lapse in borrowing authority takes effect Oct. 17, even as senators block legislation to prevent one and talks between the White House and House Republicans have hit an impasse. Democratic lawmakers said Oct. 12 that the lack of movement may have an effect on financial markets. After Oct. 17, the U.S. will have $30 billion plus incoming revenue and would start missing payments sometime between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Germany, staggering under the weight of 132 billion gold marks in war reparations and not permitted to export to the victors’ markets, was a serial defaulter from 1922, according to Albrecht Ritschl, a professor of economic history at the London School of Economics. That forced the country to borrow to pay its creditors, in what Ritschl calls a Ponzi scheme.
“Reparations were at the heart of the issue in the interwar years,” Ritschl said in a telephone interview. “The big question is why anyone lent a dime to Germany with those hanging over them. The assumption must have been that reparations would eventually go away.”
While a delinquent corporation may go out of business, be broken up, sold to a competitor, or otherwise change its shape, sovereign defaulters are different. Weimar Germany deferred payments, stopped transfers, reformed the currency and wrote down debt, wringing a series of agreements from its creditors before the Nazis repudiated the obligations in 1933.
It took until the 1953 London Debt Agreement to lay to rest the nation’s reparations difficulties, essentially by postponing any payments until after reunification in 1990 of East and West Germany, according to Timothy Guinnane, Professor of Economic History at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. The U.S., eager to ensure Germany was a bulwark against communism, pressured creditors to agree to debt relief, according to Guinnane.
“The U.S. was not being generous or magnanimous in the London Debt Agreement, it rarely is,” Guinnane said in an e-mail. “Rather, it understood that if Germany was forced to repay all the debts it technically owed, it would put the new Federal Republic under intolerable political and economic strain.”
Payments on about 150 million euros ($203 million) of bonds issued to fund reparations ended in October 2003, according to the Associated Press.
After sovereign defaults and before a nation is allowed to borrow again, some sort of repayment is typically made, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff wrote in their 2009 book on sovereign bankruptcies “This Time Is Different.” While Russia’s Bolshevik government refused to pay Tsarist debts, when the country re-entered debt markets it negotiated a token payment on the debt, according to the book.
Germany and France have both defaulted eight times since 1800, according to Reinhart and Rogoff. While Germany was sufficiently big and strategically important to be helped to peaceful prosperity by its creditors, default typically doesn’t end well for smaller nations.
Serial defaulters Argentina and Greece have retained political, if not economic independence. The Latin American nation failed to meet its commitments five times since 1951 and in 2001 gained the record for the largest-ever restructuring, a distinction it held until overtaken by Greece in 2012. Argentina’s bondholders are still pursuing the nation through the courts.
Including 2012, Greece has defaulted six times since 1826, three years before it gained independence, and has spent more than half the years since 1800 in default, according to Reinhart and Rogoff.
The biggest emerging-markets defaults in the past 15 years illustrate the cycle of contagion that typically marks sovereign debt crises.
Russia halted payments on $40 billion of local debt in 1998 after oil, its main export, plunged 42 percent amid a global economic slowdown triggered by the Asian financial crisis. By the time it devalued the ruble and defaulted that August, the government had drained about half its foreign reserves and made an unsuccessful bid to increase the $22.6 billion international aid package it had received.
Russia’s debt restructuring prompted investors to pull out of emerging markets, plunging Argentina into recession. By December 2001, when the South American country halted payments on $95 billion of bonds, the economy had contracted three successive years, cutting into tax revenue and pushing foreign reserves down to almost a six-year low.
Those defaults took place because events had rendered the nations insolvent, something that doesn’t apply to the U.S., said the LSE’s Ritschl. “The only situation that really parallels the U.S. situation at present is the U.S. situation,” he said. “There’s really no doubt about the solvency of the U.S. Treasury.” source – Bloomberg
WASHINGTON – Thousands of people converged on the World War II Memorial on the National Mall on Sunday morning and tore down the barricades blocking it off, protesting the closure of the memorial during the federal government shutdown.
Beginning at about 9:30 a.m., Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as well as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, were among the luminaries in a crowd that chanted “Tear down these walls!” and sang “God Bless America” as well as other patriotic songs as they entered the memorial, which has been closed since the government shutdown that began Oct. 1.
Tractor-trailers headed down 17th Street toward the Mall, blaring their horns. The Metropolitan Police Department blocked off the street, prompting the crowd to head up the street, shouting at the police to move their vehicles.
Cruz said that President Obama was using veterans as political pawns in the shutdown.
By 11 a.m., the group had headed back to the memorial, and dozens congregated around World War II veterans, shaking their hands and thanking them for their service.
Later in the morning, veteran Mike Lauriente was accepting handshakes from demonstrators. He served in Sicily and French Morocco, and declared the memorial, which he was seeing for the first time, beautiful. “The spirit that I see here is overwhelming.” source – WTOP