Hilliary Clinton Takes Responsibility for Security Failure in Libya

Comments Off

Well no surprise here, Hilliary jumps on the sword for the Führer, so it doesn’t hurt him too much more with the elections near. Damage control obviously. Here is Hillary Clinton To Obama In 2008: “The Buck Stops In The Oval Office”The Secretary of State took the fall for the lack of security in Benghazi Monday, but in 2008 told then Senator Obama the “buck stops in the Oval Office.” Ah, politics !

 

On the eve of the second presidential debate, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday night that she took “responsibility” for the failure to successfully defend against the Sept. 11 attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

“I take responsibility,” she said in an interview with CNN. “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”

Mrs. Clinton made the comments shortly after she arrived in Lima, Peru, for a diplomatic visit, and they appeared to be an effort to inoculate President Obama from criticism for any security lapses in Libya as he prepared for Tuesday’s debate with Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger.

In a speech on Friday, Mrs. Clinton argued for continued American engagement in the volatile regions of the Middle East. She said it was the State Department’s responsibility to make sure that diplomats had the resources to carry out their duties abroad. But she stopped short then of taking responsibility for the events in Benghazi that led to the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Over the past week there has been an escalating debate over the security measures that the Obama administration established for the American Embassy in Tripoli and its diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

In a hearing last week, the embassy’s former security officer contended that the State Department had rejected his requests to extend security arrangements that were in place at the time.

Republican lawmakers have sought to focus on the White House’s role. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. sought to blunt that criticism during his debate with Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, by asserting that he had not been informed of security requests from the field.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in an interview on Monday that he had sent two letters to the administration. One asked leaders of Mr. Obama’s national security team if they had informed the president of attacks against the Benghazi compound carried out in April and June and, if so, what action they had recommended. He said he had sent a separate letter to the president asking if he had been informed of those attacks and, if so, what actions he had taken.

“If he was informed, it is nobody’s responsibility other than the commander in chief to take corrective action,” Mr. Graham added, using the sort of arguments that Mr. Romney is expected to make on Tuesday.

In the CNN interview, Mrs. Clinton sought to explain why the administration had asserted that the attack in Benghazi was preceded by a demonstration over an anti-Islamic video, but later reported that there appeared to have been no such protest.

She said there is often confusion after such an attack. The State Department was involved in an “intense, long ordeal” to find out what had occurred, Mrs. Clinton said. She said her goal was to ensure that such attacks did not happen again.

“We can’t not engage,” she said. “We cannot retreat.”

NY Times

CNN Poll: Ryan Wins 48% to 44% for Biden

Comments Off

Forty-eight percent of voters who watched the vice presidential debate think that Rep. Paul Ryan won the showdown, according to a CNN/ORC International nationwide poll conducted right after Thursday night’s faceoff. Forty-four percent say that Vice President Joe Biden was victorious. The Republican running mate’s four point advantage among a debate audience that was more Republican than the country as a whole is within the survey’s sampling error.

Half of all debate watchers questioned in the poll said the showdown didn’t make them more likely to vote for either of the candidates’ bosses, 28% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 21% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect President Barack Obama.

According to the survey, 55% said that the vice president did better than expected, with 51% saying that the congressman from Wisconsin performed better than expected.

By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.

Seven in ten said Biden was seen as spending more time attacking his opponent, and that may be a contributing factor in Ryan’s 53%-43% advantage on being more likable. Ryan also had a slight advantage on being more in touch with the problems of average Americans.

CNN

Actress Ditches Obama for Romney, Accused of Being ‘Not Black Enough’

Comments Off

Actress Stacey Dash cried while watching President Barack Obama’s inauguration back in 2009.

“I am so happy … In that moment my husband and I just looked at the TV and I started to sob.”

This year, she’s a Mitt girl. Dash, best known for starring in the cult classic “Clueless,” clearly has had enough of Hope and Change, the reality version. Over the weekend, Dash tweeted her support for Mitt Romney.

Stacey Dash Tweet on Romney

Twitter users were instantly split on her announcement, with some saying she suddenly wasn’t “black enough.”

MUST WATCH: Lara Logan’s explosive speech, Obama is Lying, Al Qaeda Has’nt Gone Away

Comments Off

So Lara Logan, 60 Minutes Correspondent  Lara Logan delivered a keynote address at the Better Government Association annual luncheon, which the Chicago Sun Times called “a provocative speech” to some 1,100 movers in government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas.

The speech was more than provocative it was a warning to anyone who wishes to hear.  She explained that the Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven’t gone away and are in fact re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd that a “lie” is being propagated by the American government.

 Her ominous and frightening message was gleaned from years of covering our wars in the Middle East. She arrived in Chicago on the heels of her Sept. 30 report, “The Longest War.” It examined the Afghanistan conflict and exposed the perils that still confront America, 11 years after 9/11.

Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.

The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”

Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.

She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.

There is only one way to get out of the danger Ms. Logan warns about, that is to change the man at the top.  Obama believes in lying to the American people and leading from behind. Based on his speech earlier today,  Governor Romney believes in protecting Americans through strength.

Based on her talk, Ms Logan believes that Obama’s way does not work.

Entire article

ABC News scrambles to downplay Obama’s attendance at VP debate moderator’s wedding

Comments Off

President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.

Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, a liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.

Genachowski — called “Jay” at the time of his wedding, sources told TheDC — and Raddatz would go on to have a son together before their divorce in 1997. They have both since remarried to other people.

A source who attended the 1991 wedding told TheDC that Obama was also a guest there, and remembered that a man by the name of “Barry Obama” was among the guests dancing at the reception.
Read more

Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report

Comments Off

The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months.

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel “embarrassed” and labeling you a fool, or worse.

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn’t make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that’s why I made a stink about it.

Let’s get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, “I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid’s bus fare, but I haven’t been able to find anything else,” that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS’s own “Handbook of Methods” has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from “misinterpretation of the questions” to “errors made in the estimations of missing data.”

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let’s just say, overstated.

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That’s why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we’re told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

I know I’m not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, “Really? If all that’s true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?”

I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.

The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.

I’m not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won’t be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: “the government has cooked the books.”

The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign’s biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is “partly due to a statistical fluke.”

The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.

Mr. Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University.

Entire article

Meet the Obama Donors at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Comments Off

BLS logo

BY:
October 5, 2012 1:28 pm

At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama’s campaign. Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. During his time at BLS, Harley has published a number of papers including his most recent, “How to Think About Time-Use Data: What Inferences Can We Make About Long- and Short-Run Time Use from Time Diaries?”

Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle. According to his LinkedIn profile, Phillips served as an economist at BLS between June 2009 and July 2012. Phillips was responsible for examining the impact of Obamacare on Healthcare North American Industry Classification System indices. Phillips was also assistant coach for a girls’ high school tennis team in 2010.

Clarification, 3:31 P.M.: The post has been updated to note Phillips’ dates of employment at the BLS.

Sept. jobless report labeled ‘a setup’

Comments Off

As you read this be aware that the Household surveys are more like a poll of 60,000 people (been done for years) , but the business survey is more reliable. Also what isn’t being reported is 582,000 of these 873,000 household jobs are part time/temporary jobs. The U6, which is a better indicator of unemployment is still over 14%.

CNBC calls the numbers “tame,” but also notes the “contradictory” numbers.

Hotair.com says:

Something’s odd with this report.  Either the household survey (one of the two surveys the BLS uses to compile this report) is way off, or the BLS is underreporting job growth in the overall numbers.

A Christian financial expert is reacting to Friday’s unemployment rate report out of Washington, calling the alleged drop “deceptive” and indicative of why Americans are losing faith in their government.

The federal government says the unemployment rate fell sharply from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent last month — the same unemployment rate as when Barack Obama took office. According to the report, 114,000 jobs were added in September – many of them part-time.

Last month, Dan Celia of Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries predicted the jobless rate would fall to 7.9 percent in the October jobs report — which is due out just days before the November election. But the drop reported today, according to Celia, is not the result of a massive number of jobs being created.

“I said it was a setup. This was more smoke and mirrors and deception,” he said Friday on American Family Radio. “And I also said that I’ve lost all confidence and faith — what little I had, and I didn’t have a lot — in the Department of Labor Statistics.

“Well, this number that we got today, going down below eight percent leading up to the election, is confirmation of everything that I’ve been saying. And I’m sad to say that because this is our government that we’re losing faith in.”

Celia calls it “very interesting” that in this latest report, the labor participation rate did not change.  “[But] what did change dramatically were the household surveys,” he stated. “Now let me tell you a little bit about the household surveys.

“[That's] something that has been going on for many, many years — since the 70s — where the Bureau of Labor Statistics picks up their dial-up phone, which I think they still have, because they don’t do real-time data and they haven’t come in to the technology of the 21st century yet, and they pick up and they make surveys. They call numerous people, people that are on their ‘list,’ and they ask them: Has anybody in your household found a job?

According to those surveys, 873,000 people reported finding a job — the largest number since 1983.

“Let me just tell you about 1983,” Celia offered. “In 1983, we were creating well over a million private sector jobs on average — a million. We created 114,000 this month, with an average this year of somewhere around 140,000.”

That number – even if it were half-a-million jobs a month – is not enough, says Celia, to maintain what he terms a “stagnant inflation.”

“But somehow, in the midst of creating 114,000 jobs this month, we see an unemployment rate go down because of the households surveys, which is an archaic way of doing anything when we have real-time data available – do you understand that?….”

“… What I’m saying is, you call household surveys and you have more positive household surveys than you have had since 1983 when we were creating over a million jobs per month? You figure it out.”

One News Now

Under oath pollster admits polls were ‘propaganda’…

Comments Off

Like we already don’t know this and don’t trust polls…...from Politico none the less, after we have been told lately twice of polls being stacked 11% in one case admitted by Chuck Todd of NBC and 13% on another case.

When a pollster or strategist for a struggling political campaign presents what seems like a sugar-coated view of his candidate’s chances, do you ever think: I wish I could give that adviser some truth serum, or maybe put him under oath?

Well, truth serum may be pushing it, but the put-him-under-oath part has actually happened. And when a pollster is required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury, what emerges is quite a bit different than what you hear in the waning days of a presidential campaign.

In May, the pollster for Al Gore’s presidential bid in 2000 and John Edwards’s in 2004 and 2008, Harrison Hickman, took the stand in the federal criminal case against Edwards over alleged campaign finance violations stemming from payments to support Edwards’s mistress.

Under oath, Hickman admitted that in the final weeks of Edwards’s 2008 bid, Hickman cherry-picked public polls to make the candidate seem viable, promoted surveys that Hickman considered unreliable, and sent e-mails to campaign aides, Edwards supporters and reporters which argued that the former senator was still in the hunt —even though Hickman had already told Edwards privately that he had no real chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

“They were pounding on me for positive information. You know, where is some good news we can share with people? We were monitoring all these polls and I was sending the ones that were most favorable because [campaign aides] wanted to share them with reporters,” Hickman testified on May 14 at the trial in Greensboro, N.C. “We were not finding very much good news and I was trying to give them what I could find.”

Hickman testified that when circulating the polls, he didn’t much care if they were accurate. “I didn’t necessarily take any of these as for—as you would say, for the truth of the matter. I took them more as something that could be used as propaganda for the campaign,” the veteran pollster said.

Continue reading

 

Fed Sends Thank You Letters To Congress For Letting Them Destroy Our Economy In Secret

Comments Off

It was Politico that first broke the story about the thank you letters that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sent to five members of Congress back in July.  Bernanke acknowledged in the letters that there was never any worry that the “Audit the Fed” bill would actually get through Congress and be signed into law, but he was still extremely grateful that a number of members of Congress got up and publicly denounced the bill….

In July, the Fed chairman sent letters of gratitude to five Democratic members of Congress after they delivered speeches on the House floor urging fellow lawmakers to reject the “Audit the Fed” bill authored by retiring Texas Republican Ron Paul, the central bank’s chief antagonist.

Their efforts failed to defeat the bill, but they were not in vain, at least in Bernanke’s eyes.

“While the outcome of the vote was not in doubt, your willingness to stand up for the independence of the Federal Reserve is greatly appreciated,” Bernanke wrote in the letters, which were obtained by POLITICO through a Freedom of Information Act request.

So who did Bernanke send those letters to?

According to Politico, the thank you letters were delivered to U.S. Representatives Barney Frank, Elijah Cummings, Melvin Watt, Carolyn Maloney and Steny Hoyer.

By refusing to take action against the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Congress is silently endorsing their incredibly foolish policies.

Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize that the Federal Reserve has more control over our economy than anyone else does.  Most Americans that are actually concerned about politics are busy arguing over whether Obama or Romney will be better for the economy when it is actually the Fed that controls the levers of economic power.

Just think about it.

The Federal Reserve played a major role in creating the housing bubble which severely damaged our financial system a few years ago.

As the chart below shows, after 9/11 the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to historically low levels.  This allowed potential home buyers to get into much larger mortgages, and the big banks (which the Fed supposedly “regulates”) started making home loans to almost anyone with a pulse.

When interest rates started to go back up to normal levels in 2005, many home owners discovered that their adjustable rate mortgages started to become much more painful.  By 2007, we started to see a massive wave of mortgage defaults.  In 2008, the financial system crashed.

In response to the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to record low levels.  The effective federal funds rate is essentially at zero at this point, and the Fed has promised to keep interest rates at ultra-low levels all of the way into 2015.

But didn’t artificially low interest rates cause many of our problems in the first place?  The central planners over at the Fed are convinced that this is the right course for our economy, but can we really live in a zero interest rate bubble indefinitely?  Won’t this eventually cause even greater problems?….

The Fed is also destroying our economy by recklessly printing money.

Once upon a time, the U.S. monetary base rose at a very steady pace.  But since the financial crisis of 2008, Ben Bernanke has been flooding the financial system with money and this has caused an unprecedented explosion in our money supply.

It isn’t too hard to see from this chart what the foolish “quantitative easing” policies of the Federal Reserve have done to our monetary base….

Fortunately a lot of the money from previous rounds of quantitative easing is being stashed by the big banks as “excess reserves” with the Federal Reserve, but when that money starts flowing into the “real economy” (and it will at some point), we are going to have a major problem on our hands.

But more than tripling our monetary base was not enough for Bernanke.  He recently announced yet another round of quantitative easing which he says will last indefinitely.

Basically, Bernanke is taking a sledgehammer to the U.S. dollar.  Our currency is being systematically destroyed, and the U.S. Congress is standing by and doing nothing.

Continue reading

 

Older Entries Newer Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers