Thursday, September 19, 2013

Sad but true...

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

There has been no other published indication that Aaron Alexis was a Muslim or had any interest in Islam. It may be, however, that in his delusional madness, he began to identify with the jihadists who have committed mass murder in the name of their bloodthirsty god.

"Navy Yard gunman's mother says she is heartbroken and sorry for families," by Kyle Eppler, Pete Williams and Erin McClam for NBC News, September 18 (thanks to Darcy):
The mother of Aaron Alexis, the Washington Navy Yard shooter, said Wednesday that she was heartbroken and sorry for the families of the victims and that she was glad he is "in a place where he can no longer do harm to anyone." 
In a brief statement to a reporter in New York, the woman, Cathleen Alexis, said her son "has murdered 12 people and wounded several others."...
Authorities say they are still looking for a motive. Since Alexis carried out the attack Monday at the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command, signs have emerged of a troubled history.
• Alexis, who served as a naval reservist from 2007 to 2011 and worked more recently as a civilian contractor, had a military disciplinary record that included disorderly conduct, insubordination and unexcused absences.
Newport, R.I., police said he called them Aug. 7 to say he had changed hotels twice because he believed people were chasing him and sending vibrations through the walls to keep him from sleeping.
Police said they had forwarded their report to police at the naval station in Newport. Military officials told NBC News on Wednesday that they had found no evidence that naval police forwarded the information to any higher command outside the base.
• The Department of Veterans Affairs said Wednesday that it saw Alexis twice. He went to a VA emergency room in Providence, R.I., on Aug. 23 complaining of insomnia and was given sleep medicine and told to follow up with a doctor, the agency said. Five days later, Alexis showed up at a VA emergency room in Washington to get a refill and was again encouraged to see a doctor, the VA said.
The VA said Alexis denied struggling with anxiety or depression or having thoughts about hurting himself or others. It also said he enrolled in VA health care in February 2011 and never sought an appointment for mental health.
• Alexis also had run-ins with the law over gun violence. He was accused in 2004 of having shot out the tires of a car in Seattle and in 2010 of having fired a gun into an upstairs apartment in Fort Worth, Texas.
Friends and relatives have also said he had a preoccupation with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, felt slighted as a veteran, had money problems and was so unhappy with his life that he considered leaving the U.S.
Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Alexis created a webpage with the name "Mohammed Salem," but they said he never did anything with it. They said they had found nothing else that might indicate any interest in violent jihad or even in Islam.
Obamacare Repeal and Replace Bill Unveiled in House September 18, 2013 0 obamacare By JAVIER MANJARRES As we reported earlier, “back in June, I sat down with Republican Congressman Renee Ellmers (NC), a former nurse, and House Health sub-committee member, where she divulged the little known effort that Republicans were working to replace Obamacare with and actual piece of legislation.” After 37 votes to repeal Obamacare, on Wednesday September 18, the American Health Care Reform Act bill will be introduced to “repeal” and “replace” the controversial and unaffordable Obamacare law. Just a few moments ago, Ellmers and other Republican law makers on the Republican Study Committee (RSC), formally unveiled the repeal and replace Obamacare bill, the American Health Care Reform Act. Here is what the bill does: -Fully repeals President Obama’s health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs. -Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations. Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients. -Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance. -Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses. -Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections. -Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions. “We are now only days away from the implementation of Obamacare. But just last month, the administration announced another delay – this time in the implementation of cost savings for consumers. With the decisions to delay the law’s implementation, the Obama administration is now conceding that this is not just a problem, but a nightmare for the U.S. economy. That’s why today I’m happy to announce that we have a legislative answer that will repeal and replace Obamacare through the American Health Care Reform Act.” “This bill relies on patient-centered solutions while addressing critical reforms. Vital improvements to our current healthcare system have been carefully introduced into this legislation and include purchasing insurance across state lines, ensuring coverage for pre-existing conditions, reigning in frivolous lawsuits, and saving billions in healthcare costs without penalizing small businesses for having an arbitrary number of employees. This is only the beginning as we continue to fight for all Americans and prevent the danger lurking on our doorstep with the implementation of Obamacare set to take effect on October 1st.”-Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) - See more at:

Read more at: | The Shark Tank
Rubio: Only Obama Wants to Shut Down Government
By Jim Meyers and John Bachman

Republicans should do "anything and everything" to prevent the "disaster" of Obamacare, Sen. Marco Rubio tells Newsmax. But he insists it can be done without shutting down the government.

The Florida Republican asserts that President Barack Obama actually wants a government shutdown to achieve a "political win," and the administration is going to fight to the bitter end to defend its healthcare reforms.

Elected in 2010, Rubio is considered a rising star in the Republican Party. He delivered the GOP's response to Obama's State of the Union address in February and has been mentioned as a presidential candidate in 2016.

His committee assignments include the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

In an exclusive interview Wednesday with Newsmax TV, Rubio discusses efforts to stop Obamacare and the possibility of a government shutdown.

To see video interview click on link below...

"Every single member of the Republican conference agrees that Obamacare should be stopped, but the disagreement is about the tactic," he says. "I'm not in favor of shutting down the government. The president appears now politically to be in favor of shutting down the government.

"I'm in favor of funding the government at the levels that were agreed to last year in the Budget Control Act and not spending a single penny more of hardworking taxpayer dollars on a disaster, which is Obamacare.

"Actually, the administration has admitted it's a disaster because they've had to delay major portions of it. Labor unions that strongly supported Obamacare are now asking to be exempted from it.

"So we should be doing anything and everything we can to prevent this law from going into effect, because once it starts to hurt people, it's going to hurt our economy in ways that are very difficult to undo later."

The House will pass a plan to delay and defund Obamacare but to keep the government  open, Speaker John Boehner says.

"That's very positive news," says Rubio. "It's now going to call attention to the fact that we can keep the government open, we can fund the government, but we don't have to shut down the government, and we don't have to fund Obamacare.

"It's the president who's threatening to shut down the government because he is saying, and it's the position his allies in the Senate so far have taken, that unless they fund Obamacare, they won't fund the government.

"The president's basically looking for a political win, and I guess his political people have told him that this is a political win: shut down the government and blame the Republicans. The problem is that's not the Republican position."

Rubio predicted that the House will pass a short-term budget to keep the government running.

"If in fact the government shuts down, it will be unfortunately because the president and his allies believe that Obamacare is so important to them that they are willing to shut down the government over it.

"That's shortsighted, primarily because they are going to fight to the end to defend a disaster, something that even their own allies and labor unions are asking to be let out from."

What Rubio is most concerned about, regarding the lack of a federal budget, is the long-term economic health of the country.

"Here's what I know to be true: The American free-enterprise system is the only economic system in human history where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything, where people through hard work and sacrifice can achieve a better life. It has eradicated more poverty than all the government programs in the world combined. That's what free enterprise does.

"One of the things that comes to mind in free enterprise is unpredictability about the future, because people are afraid to open up new businesses or expand existing ones or invest in new products and invent new things if they're uncertain about the future. This lack of a federal budget and the certainty about future spending worries people. It's holding growth back.

"So I would prefer to have a real budget. Unfortunately, for Democrats budgets are nothing but an opportunity to grow the size and scope of the government."

Rubio maintains that Mitt Romney could have won the presidential election in 2012 if Americans knew more about Obamacare.

Obamacare: Massive New Rules Revealed for 2013

"It's very difficult to go back in hindsight and analyze what would have happened, but it was a very close election, and certainly if people had known what they know now about the healthcare law" the election results might well have been different.

"We just had word this week in Sea World down in Florida that 2,000 people who work part time are going to lose hours from 32 hours to 28 hours. That's devastating for these families.

"This is the real world impact of Obamacare, and if that had been more apparent to people last November, there are a few people out there that would have voted differently and it's very possible that Mitt Romney right now would be in the White House and we'd have a much better outcome for our future."

As for Democrats' charge that Republicans have not offered an alternative to Obamacare, Rubio observes: "I actually don't think that's a very fair analysis. First of all, over 80 percent of Americans have healthcare coverage and most of them are happy with the coverage that they have. We do have a significant number of Americans that are uninsured for a variety of different reasons and that's what we should be focused on.

"But that's not what Obamacare does. Obamacare basically takes everybody, including people that are happy with their existing coverage, and lumps them all in together in this one-size-fits-all approach that's actually hurting people that are happy with their coverage and not doing much to help people that don't have coverage now."

Rubio has been a strong advocate for immigration reform, but there has been little talk of reform since Congress returned from recess.

Rubio says: "Obviously this is a difficult issue to deal with. We all agree that we have a broken legal immigration system, and, in particular, we don't have a merit-based immigration system, which is what our country desperately needs. We also have a very significant illegal-immigration problem.

"Where the debate is now is what's the best way to solve it.

"But I would also point out that there have been some other issues that are as important or more important that have overtaken it here in the short term. When you have the potential for war, as the Syria conflict raised last week, that's going to galvanize and cause a lot of attention to be paid.

"And then these budget fights are important and Obamacare is incredibly important. The national debt and the debt limit is going to be incredibly important. Those issues are time sensitive. Immigration's a big issue but these issues are bigger and that's why the focus is on those issues right now."

Less than a year since the last mass shooting, the nation finds itself grieving again. On Monday, we watched in horror as news developed about a shooting at the Navy Yard located in Washington, D.C.; a federal military installation home to more than 3,000 civilian and military employees a mere stone’s throw from the U.S. Capitol Building.

As the tragedy unfolded, the number of victims slowly rose from one, to two, to six, to finally 12 innocent people; and it became clear this was yet another tragic conclusion to a senseless act of mass violence. This is, however, a tragedy that likely could have been prevented not by more “gun control,” but by implementing reasonable measures designed to actually protect our military installations from deranged criminals and religious zealots.

As with any violent criminal episode involving mass victims, there are more questions than answers in the immediate aftermath of this incident. Unfortunately, a lack of facts or evidence has not stopped single-minded, anti-gun activists like President Obama and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein from using the tragic episode to renew calls for gun control.

Yet, if there is any place in the United States where firearm restrictions should have worked at preventing a shooting tragedy, it is the Navy Yard -- a highly secure military installation in a city with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation; not to mention the most advanced security systems on the planet.

However, in spite of all these “safety protocols” and gun constraints -- and, perhaps in part as a result of these factors -- the shooting still occurred.

That is what makes the anti-gun rhetoric of Obama and Feinstein so dangerous. Rather than acting based on a reasoned analysis of how and why mass shootings occur, they seek to advance political agendas. To them, tragedies such as this are not teachable moments we can use to reduce future acts of violence. Rather, mass shootings serve as yet another hilltop from which to press their anti-gun agenda. Given the philosophical blinders they chose to wear, they miss the real issue and history repeats itself -- tragically.

For example, we should have learned from the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting that the ban on military personnel carrying personal firearms in military installations (or even possessing guns in their homes) creates a relatively safe, target-rich environment for would-be mass murderers. Our domestic military bases have become Gun-Free Zones – a fact not likely lost on the criminally minded looking for a place to “leave their mark.” This irresponsible ban was instituted during the anti-gun administration of President Bill Clinton, and continues to this day.

Instead of focusing on making such institutions actually safer in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood shooting, the Obama Administration published an 80-page report signed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that contained little more than politically correct pap.

Unfortunately, our military leadership has fallen in lock-step with the Administration’s view that firearms in the hands of our military personnel is just too much of a “public safety” issue to risk changing -- even though a single shot from an armed officer or enlisted person could have stopped both the Ft. Hood and Navy Yard shooters cold. Nary a single page in the Ft. Hood post-mortem contained any truly relevant or substantive steps that could be taken to “protect the force” against future attacks. The conversation about reevaluating Clinton’s pacifistic policy of populating our military installations with unarmed personnel never occurred.

As I wrote in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, if we want to prevent future attempted mass shootings, we must stop rushing to the easy scapegoat – guns -- which at best only addresses the “what” of mass shootings. Instead, we should focus on addressing the “why,” which is far more likely to lead to answers on how to prevent future attacks. But, we can only have this conversation if we tune-out the ideologues who hijack such tragedies for political gain.

In the coming weeks and months, it is my fervent hope that, at long last, a “meaningful response” to a mass shooting such as occurred at the Navy Yard, will be based on wisdom gleaned from a measured and logical analysis of the realities of how and why mass shooters act as they do; rather than on the tired, dead-end Shibboleth of gun control.

While reading from the teleprompter in front of the Business Roundtable headquarters in Washington DC, President Obama suggested that raising the National Debt Limit would not increase the Nation’s Debt. Well – actually – he didn’t suggest that. . . He simply said it:

"Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt.”
Um. . . Ok. I mean, well, it has increased our debt every other time it’s been raised. . . So, are we expected to believe that government intends to keep from issuing more debt this time? If that’s the case, why raise the limit? It almost seems like the President is using new Common-Core math standards in his explanation of the debt limit negotiations.

Of course he didn’t always think in such nuanced, and incorrect, ways. Back as a Senator from the great state of Chicago (No. . . That’s not a typo. I consider Chicago its own state.) Obama complained about having to vote for an increase in the National Debt to over $8 trillion dollars. Roughly $9 trillion dollars later our creditors might be wishing that anonymous senator from Chicago had remained anonymous.

The President then spilled into the often repeated line that raising the debt is merely a matter of paying the “bills that you've already racked up”. The line, however, was accented nicely with a condescending tone, and verbally directed at Congress – as if Obama has merely been a spectator to Washington’s drunken spending spree. It should also be added that our bills are largely a function of our spending habits. . . If anything, a need to increase our National Debt should illustrate our desperate need to reign in government spending. If banks treated personal credit cards the same way the White House wants Congress to treat the National Debt, Lehman Brothers would have been the least of our worries in 2009.

Then came another partisan moment of demagoguery from our Campaigner in Chief as he explained to the Roundtable that “what we now have is an ideological fight that's been mounted in the House of Representatives that says, we're not going to pass a budget and we will threaten a government shutdown unless we repeal the Affordable Care Act.”

Right. Republicans are the problem. According to the President, Republicans should be ashamed for demanding negotiations and compromises. Now, at least they have a reason for not passing a budget, Mr. President. I assume Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats went 4 years and roughly $6 trillion without passing a budget simply for the fun of it.

The Speech was mostly a recycled batch of his campaign’s mail-out literature. Throughout the speech, Obama seemed unable to contain his disdain for the GOP’s audacious willingness to negotiate an increase in the Debt Limit; as opposed to simply rubber stamping the Democrat’s proposals. In addition to having a failed grasp of debt obligations, he seems to deeply misunderstand the role of the minority party.

The President has shown a repeated and obvious disdain for having to negotiate with his political opposition. The simple fact that the White House has said they refuse to negotiate on the Debt Limit is indicative of their amateurish expectations. Every President in recent memory, from FDR to George W, has had to negotiate, compromise and sometimes cave to their political opponents. And yet, for some reason, this Administration believes they are entitled to give out non-negotiable ultimatums to their political opponents.

The simple fact is, Mr. President, an increase in the National Debt Limit will result in more debt. That Debt will be taken on to pay future bills incurred through the unsustainable spending habits of today.

And, Mr. President, the opposition party – in case you haven't been keeping up – is supposed to make life difficult for the majority. It turns out that was a major design element to the concept of representative government.

One almost would have expected a former Constitutional Lecturer to know that.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation wants permanent seat on UN Security Council

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

If they get this, they will step up their war on the freedom of speech and efforts to get the West to criminalize criticism of Islam.

"Islamic bloc wants a permanent seat at U.N. Security Council: report," by Jessica Chasmar for the Washington Times, September 17:
The Muslim world deserves a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) suggested at the Russian Foreign Ministry's international relations institute this week. 
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said the 57-member organization already made up the biggest voting bloc at the U.N., and it was time it acquired “a new position,” CNS News reported today.
“During the first reconsideration of the reform in the U.N., I think there should be a seat for OIC in the Security Council,” Mr. Ihsanoglu said. “If you look to the structure of the Security Council of today, you have the P5 [permanent five] and there are representatives of different civilizations, different cultures, political powers … but you won’t find representative of more than 1.6 billion people of Muslim world.”
The U.N. Security Council currently has five permanent, veto-wielding members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The nations most often viewed as contenders for any new permanent seats — India, Japan, Brazil, Germany and South Africa — exclude Muslim countries, the report said.
Mr. Ihsanoglu argued that the European Union, though structured differently from the OIC, has enjoyed an elevated status at the U.N. since 2011.
“I think the status acquired by the EU in 2011 in U.N. should also be acquired by the OIC,” he said, according to the report.
Mr. Ihsanoglu became secretary-general of the OIC in January 2005 and is due to retire at the end of this year, CNS News reported. Since taking his position, the Islamic bloc has become a more of an activist organization, accusing the West of “Islamophobia,” the report added.

Obama: Con Man Or Madman?

by / Personal Liberty Digest

I keep asking: Why Syria? Why now? No war in America history has ever been opposed by 71 percent of the citizens or by 75 percent of the military. That’s how absurd and unnecessary this war is. Then you realize Barack Obama has so many scandals and failures to hide that war is the perfect cover story to mask the most disastrous record in modern Presidential history. Obama is a desperate man. He has to cover up the truth.

We have a con man in the White House.

The sad thing is it’s working. The media headlines should be about the massive Internal Revenue Service scandal ordered by the Obama Administration and aimed at Tea Parties, Obama critics and GOP donors. Because it’s no longer in the headlines (because of Syria hogging the media spotlight), no one is mentioning that the IRS attacks on conservative leaders and groups is the worst political persecution in modern political history. It was a witch hunt conducted by big-government employees upon conservatives who stand for smaller government. It was an attempt to end free speech. And it was a massive fraud to change the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. Obama’s re-election is one big fraud. But Obama has used Syria to push the IRS scandal out of the headlines.

We have a con man in the White House.

The media headlines should be about the National Security Agency scandal aimed at violating the civil rights and invading the privacy of every American citizen. But with Syria hogging the media spotlight, we have all forgotten that Obama listens to every phone call, watches every email. Big Brother rules our lives. If a Republican were in the White House, this massive violation of our civil liberties would be the No. 1 news story in the Nation. But with Syria in the headlines, we don’t hear a word about the NSA scandal anymore.

We have a con man in the White House.

The media headlines should be about Benghazi, Libya. Not only should everyone be asking why four American heroes died (including the first U.S. ambassador killed in more than 30 years), but why? Were they killed with weapons supplied by the Obama Administration to al-Qaida rebels? Why weren’t Obama and Hillary Clinton forced to resign in disgrace for the worst (and most obvious) cover-up in modern Presidential history?

Like the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal changed the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election.

Would Obama have been re-elected had the public known there was no “spontaneous demonstration” outside our embassy that day and that the weapons used to attack our embassy were supplied by our own CIA, upon orders of Obama? Would Obama have been re-elected had Americans known that there was time to save those brave heroes defending our embassy, but Obama and Clinton refused to send a rescue team — multiple times. Fraud was committed to re-elect Obama. But with Syria in the headlines, no one is mentioning Benghazi anymore.

We have a con man in the White House.

The media headlines should be about Obamacare — a fast-moving train wreck about to destroy the entire U.S. economy. It’s so bad that Congressmen exempted themselves a month ago. It’s so bad that union leaders met with Obama at the White House to demand they all be exempted or that Obamacare be repealed. Yes, unions are asking for the repeal of Obamacare, the signature achievement of the man they elected President. Shouldn’t this story be in the headlines?

It’s so bad the head of the IRS testified in front of Congress that he didn’t want Obamacare, and he’s in charge of enforcing it. It’s so bad that the telemarketing company Obama hired to promote Obamacare employs part-time workers so they don’t have to offer health insurance to employees. It’s so bad that fast-food chains are “sharing” employees so no one works more than 29 hours, thereby avoiding Obamacare requirements.

And what about the questions? Obamacare demands doctors by law ask every patient about their sexual histories. Then that information will be turned over to government. Big Brother will use this information to control our lives. Conservative politicians will be blackmailed into supporting big government or forced to resign, as their personal information is leaked by Obama. How about women? Where are the women’s groups protesting in the streets? Where are the headlines? Oh, right. Syria is in the headlines.

We have a con man in the White House.

The media headlines should be about this part-time economy created by Obamacare. The numbers are sickening. The whole country is being reduced to nothing but crummy, crappy, part-time jobs. Since January, 77 percent of all jobs created in America under Obama have been part-time jobs.

Not surprisingly, in a Nation with only crummy part-time jobs, the income picture is degenerating into a nightmare. Real household income has dropped in every year of Obama’s Presidency. A new Census Bureau report reveals that the typical American family, under Obama, now earns less today than it did in 1989.

How about the numbers living in poverty under Obama? An unimaginable 46.5 million Americans now live in poverty under Obama — twice as many as the population of Syria. Maybe it’s America that needs saving, not Syria?

There are more Americans on food stamps (23.1 million) than the population of the entire Northeast United States (20 million), including New York, Boston and Philadelphia.

But with a possible war in Syria in the headlines, no one is noticing all these scandals, all this bad news, a crumbling economy and a collapsing middle class. Obama has clearly wrecked America for generations to come.

We either have a con man in the White House or a madman.

See video here: