Monday, November 30, 2015

Congressional declaration of war on the Islamic State??



Will Congress declare war on ISIS?

 

Media, Dems join hawks in call for total annihilation

 
WND Exclusive


WASHINGTON – It’s no longer just French President Francois Hollande calling for all-out war on ISIS. 
It’s not just Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, or Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, calling for a congressional declaration of war on the Islamic State – an action not taken in this city since World War II.  Now the cries are bi-partisan, coming from some unlikely sources and even cheered on by the U.S. news media.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut is one who is now on board.

“Congress must declare war against ISIS,” he said. “Each one of us first ran for office on the promise that we wouldn’t shy away from tough debates, but rather, would rise to the challenge the times demand. Now is the time to prove we meant it.”

In a letter to senators Friday, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism called for a vote before the end-of-the-year recess in December.

“We’ve taken dozens of votes to repeal Obamacare; we’ve held hours upon hours of hearings and multiple special investigations on Benghazi; we’ve devoted days of Senate floor time to blocking new administration rules on clean water and power,” he said. “That is the majority’s prerogative, but this Congress has so far failed to take a single vote on the war that is currently being fought against ISIS, or to truly debate how we confront this evil.”


In a signed editorial in Florida Today, Stephen Long, a defense-industry executive and member of the paper’s editorial advisory board, had this to say: “With incredible sadness but firm resolve, I call on the United States Congress to formally declare war on ISIS and all similar groups espousing hatred against the world and our Western way of life.”

“Nothing less than full consideration of a formal declaration of war will be sufficient to the task at hand,” he added. “If after prayerful and difficult deliberations, the Congress chooses not to declare war on behalf of the people it is sworn to serve – so be it. We as a people will have spoken and we as a people will have to thereafter accept the consequences. If we fail to stand up to the ISIS threat then we should all be prepared to fall prostrate before those willing to force us to their evil will.”

He added: “If we declare War, then we must act like we are at war – we are and will be in a battle for the survival of freedom and liberty. American citizens have been killed by cowardly acts of indiscriminate terror. We cannot wish this evil away. Such evil can only be kept at bay by hard steel and a firm resolve to win. A formal declaration of war will and must have consequences for all Americans – not just those that serve in our armed forces. As a people, we must be willing to pay the price, no matter how high.”

Seemingly arguing against simply a reauthorization of military force by Congress, many, like Long, are making it clear they are calling for a constitutional declaration of war – an action not invoked by Congress for 75 years. “A formal declaration of war will give unequivocal direction to our elected government – to tell them we must stand and fight, to not cower,” Long wrote. “War is horrible. Appeasement, surrender and moral cowardice are acts worse than war. We must stand together and steel ourselves for what lies ahead.”

Others in Congress are talking tough on ISIS, but falling short of calling for a formal declaration of war. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, says he is on introducing a new authorization for the use of military force in December.

'president' Obama is currently carrying out military actions claiming he doesn’t need such a authorization. He has been asserting authority given by Congress to his predecessor for fighting the more obtuse “war on terror” in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Many, in and out of Congress, now agree that the hostilities by ISIS, which didn’t even exist in 2001, require a more specific action under the Constitution.

An open debate on all the actions the long war would entail — from drone strikes to electronic eavesdropping — would clarify the extraordinary powers Congress expects the 'president' to use in order to keep the country safe.

“This is a muddled, sub-constitutional netherworld,” wrote Eli Lake, a national security columnist for Bloomberg View, in a New York Post editorial. “Is the U.S. at war? It looks like war. And if Congress hasn’t voted to declare war or certify some military operation, then is this risk to the U.S. really as great as many suggest? Though Congress hasn’t voted to ‘declare war’ since 1942, it has elected to do so on five occasions since the beginning of the republic.”

Nick Gillespie, writing for Reason, a staunchly non-interventionist, libertarian magazine, wrote a piece praising Lake under the headline: “Why We Need a New Declaration of War Regarding ISIS.”

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush is on record as favoring a formal declaration of war, too.  “We should declare war, and harness all of the power that the United States can bring to bear, both diplomatic and military, of course, to be able to take out ISIS,” the former governor of Florida said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” charging the Obama administration viewed the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a “law enforcement exercise.”

Another Republican vying for the party’s nomination for president, Sen. Marco Rubio, said: “We are most definitely at war with ISIS and I’d be supportive of declaring that, whether it’s formally through Congress or rhetorically.”

Yet, there’s far from a consensus for the action.

Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says she would not support a declaration of war on ISIS.  “If you have a declaration of war, you’d better have a budget that backs it up,” she said while campaigning in New Hampshire. “I do think we have to do a better job of understanding the threat that is posed by radical Islamic jihadist groups.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/will-congress-declare-war-on-isis/ 

"Obama wants the Islamic State group to win" ???


U.S. Military Pilots Provide Solid Proof That Obama (and the USA military) Is Helping ISIS… Here’s What They’re Saying

Providing yet another piece of evidence that 'president' Barack Obama is shielding the Islamic State group from destruction by American forces, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee told the Washington Free Beacon that U.S. military pilots have confirmed 75 percent of missions against the group have returned with their ordnance because they couldn’t get clearance to fire.

Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., said that an Obama administration policy not to strike if there’s any risk of collateral damage had led to the 75 percent no-fire rate, which has led to the growth of the Islamic State group across Syria and Iraq.

“I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”

Retired four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane agreed with Royce’s assessment.  “This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Gen. Keane said. “The 'president' (of the USA criminal mafia corporation in Wash DC) personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”
“When we agreed we were going to do air power and the military said, 'this is how it would work', he (Obama) said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane said. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

“No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,” Obama allegedly demanded.

Of course, Obama now has over 130 civilian casualties on his hands in one French city alone, along with countless civilian casualties from an Islamic State group that’s been thriving in the absence of any serious military challenge from the United States military.

However, unlike Obama, the French seem to get it. “Believe me,” Keane said, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.”

It almost makes one think that Barack Obama wants the Islamic State group to win.

http://conservativetribune.com/pilots-provide-solid-proof/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ConservativeTribuneEmail&utm_campaign=DailyBest&utm_content=2015-11-30

Turkish President’s Son on the run for rape and murder


Turkish President’s Son Who Raped And Murdered American And British Reporters Becomes Fugitive


A shocking new Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that an arrest warrant has been issued for the son of Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan after he failed to appear in a Turkish Superior Court investigating the Erdogan “inner circle” criminal cartel, and that further investigation by Russian analysts has, also, linked him to the rape and murders of American and British reporters who uncovered, and reported on, Turkey’s support for Islamic State terrorists in Syria. 

According to this report, the SVR was authorized this past week to open an international criminal investigation of Bilal Erdogan, the son of Turkey’s President, after an agreement was made between President Putin and French President Francois Hollande to target the Erdogan criminal cartel after the shooting down of an Aerospace Forces bomber aircraft over Syria that Syrian Information Minister, Omran al-Zoubi, stated was revenge for Russia’s destruction of the Islamic State-Turkey oil smuggling business that has earned these criminals nearly one billion dollars.

 Bilal Erdogan (far right) with known Islamic State leaders
 
Though the SVR has long known of Bilal Erdogan’s links with Islamic State terrorists on behalf of his father’s criminal cartel, this report continues, there were only two Western reporters this past year who reported to their viewers/readers on these facts, Serena Shim and Jacky Sutton, who both were raped and murdered by Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) under orders given personally by President Erdogan.

American Reporter Serena Shim


British Reporter Jacky Sutton

Serena Shim, this report notes, was a reporter for the Western news service of Iran’s Press TV when on 19 October 2014 she was captured, tortured, raped and murdered by Turkish MIT agents just days after she released a stunning report detailing Turkey’s support of Islamic State terrorists—and which after the release of this broadcast was branded by the Erdogan criminal cartel as a spy, a completely made up accusation she replied against by stating:

I’m very surprised at this accusation – I even thought of approaching Turkish intelligence because I have nothing to hide… I am a bit worried, because…Turkey has been labeled by Reporters Without Borders as the largest prison for journalists…so I am frightened about what they might use against me… We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I’ve got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks.”

On the one year anniversary of Serena Shim’s brutal rape and murder, this report continues, former BBC producer Jacky Sutton, as the Iraq director for the Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), began an in-depth report on her death when she too was brutally raped and murdered on 18 October by Turkish MIT agents, too. 

In Turkey’s MIT “amateur/clumsy/absurd” cover-up of the rape and murders of Serena Shim and Jacky Sutton, this report further notes, they claimed that Shim was killed in an auto accident that neither the driver or vehicle were ever identified or provided, and that Sutton suicided herself by hanging herself by her shoelaces in an Istanbul airport restroom because she had missed her flight

Most appallingly, this report continues, has been that Turkey’s MIT has continued their lies about these deaths even after, on 20 October, new video was released proving that Jacky Sutton went through Istanbul airport security in time to make her flight.

Most disturbing, however, in this report is the SVR stating that electronic surveillance of Bilal Erdogan on the dates of these crimes (19 October 2014 and 18 October 2015) show him in the exact locations of both Serena Shim and Jacky Sutton, thus providing enough prima-facie evidence of his complicity along with Turkey’s MIT in the rape and murder of these two women that warrants continued investigation, if not an outright indictment for rape and murder. 
 
As always, too, this report concludes the Western propaganda media continues to cover-up the rape and murder of these two heroic reporters with neither the American or British regimes even investigating these atrocities—which should come as no surprise as the hatred towards women of both the US and UK is well known as evidenced by their continued support of the largest women’s prison the world has ever known, Saudi Arabia. 

 


November 29, 2015
Sorcha Faal  
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1949.htm




Sunday, November 29, 2015

IS OBAMA A CRISIS ACTOR? OR - IS OBAMA THE CRISIS? OR BOTH??


Why Did They Pass a Law That Makes Staged Hoaxes and Crisis-Acted Movies Legal?

Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:26
Crisis Actor’s of all ages and races, may now legally create fictious hoax news videos and sell them; as real
non-fiction news stories to the National TV outlets; blurring realities between truth and non-truth.



 



Mmmmmm…… 








 

what next????





crisis actor students … some never know they are doing govt drills, for real … and some have to hide their identity’s for years, in other countries for big $$ … help the elites push through their problem, reaction, solutions ….. some of these actors are not so lucky … they have to be killed off for real …so the narrative looks real …so public buy’s the whole package of fear and terror… so the war machine can have more money … lots of $$ … 55% of US taxes go to the war machine…  





Crisisactors.org is offline … if would like to see Crisis Actor photos from this website via archive.org
link: https://web.archive.org/web/20140328202513/http://crisisactors.org/photo
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/11/why-did-they-pass-a-law-that-makes-staged-hoaxes-and-crisis-acted-movies-legal-3250128.html 

 

Illuminati Plan to Kill Christians!!

 
 A Minute To Midnite EP13
Carolyn Hamlett 
Illuminati Plan to Kill Christians!!
 
 
 
 
 
Published on Nov 24, 2015
 
In this Episode of A Minute to Midnite, Carolyn Hamlett, a former Illuminist, joins Chris and Tony as a guest and reveals the Illuminati's shocking "Compassionate Plan" to kill all Christians! 

This will be done to 'free the world of the restraining influence that Christians impose on the collective spirituality of the human race'!!!  Yet it is the Christians as a whole who provide the love and support worldwide to those in need, NOT the 'luciferian elite' or the 'illuminists' - quite the contrary.  

That's how the Luciferian 'Elite' view the "Christian Problem" that hinders their ultimate NWO solution!

Putin:Traitor to the New World Order


Vladimir Putin 
Traitor to the New World Order 
says Jacob Rothschild
 




THESE NUMBERS DON'T LIE!!!


THESE NUMBERS DON'T LIE!!!





Kenya Just Showed 100+ Radical Muslims


Kenya Just Showed 100+ Radical Muslims What Happens When You Kill Christians



One country in Africa has discovered a highly effective way to deal with radical jihadist Muslims, and it doesn’t involve peace talks or strongly worded letters. No, the method that Kenya employs against Muslim terrorists is kind of old fashioned but still the best way to make a dent in the spread of jihad in their country.

Gunfire. Lots of it. (H/T MadWorldNews)

Recently, a bus full of twenty-eight Kenyan Christians was attacked by jihadists.  After the terrorists hijacked and boarded the bus, they forced the Christians to recite the Shahada, the Islamic creed. Those who refused or didn’t know what it was, which was most of them, were slaughtered by automatic weapons.

Apparently, the jihadists claim that killing the Christians were revenge for “crimes against their Muslim brothers” in Mombasa.  

As soon as the brutal attack was reported up the chain to the Kenyan government, they showed their level of anger by taking immediate action against the radical Islamic thugs.  

First, they identified the group responsible for killing the Christians, tracked them down and delivered a quick dose of street justice – in other words, those particular Islamic thugs won’t be carrying out any more Christian killings.

But it didn’t stop there.

Kenya is apparently experimenting with a four-to-one approach in dealing with jihadist murders. Kill twenty-five of theirs; they kill one hundred of yours.

The Kenyan military actually fired up a few fighter jets and sent them on a mission to attack a nearby camp where known jihadist terrorists lived and dropped a few final reminders to ninety-five of their friends, killing them all.

Kenyan gunships and ground troops put the icing on the cake by taking out another twenty jihadist murders for good measure.

This may seem extreme for some, but it’s the only language that makes sense to these violent, psychotic jihadists

If you don’t deal with their attacks with a swift, deadly response, the killings just keep happening.

Kenya’s defense ministry obviously has a plan and they’re sticking to it.

http://conservativetribune.com/kenyan-muslims/?s=i 

The USA defense ministry also has a 'plan' - only the Americans - especially Christians - are their planned target.  

The united States, formerly considered the freedom fighter for all humanity worldwide, is now considered the leader of the terrorists worldwide.   

My - how the 'tables have turned' on this out of control insane planet.

 

Obama Outlines War Agenda

 OBAMA OUTLINES WAR AGENDA
WAR HAS BEEN PLANNED ALL ALONG

DR WM MOUNT




Carson: Best to absorb Syrian refugees in Middle Eastern host countries


Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson speaks at a rally, Monday, Nov. 23, 2015, in Pahrump, Nev. (AP Photo/John Locher)After Visiting Camps in Jordan, Ben Carson Questions Whether Syrian Refugees Want to Come to U.S.



Editor’s Note:
Story by the Associated Press; curated by Dave Urbanski



AZRAQ REFUGEE CAMP, Jordan (AP) — After touring Syrian refugee camps in Jordan, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Saturday suggested that camps should serve as a long-term solution for millions, while other refugees could be absorbed by Middle Eastern countries.

“I did not detect any great desire for them to come to the United States,” Carson told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Jordan. “You’ve got these refugee camps that aren’t completely full and all you need is the resources to be able to run them. Why do you need to create something else?”

The retired neurosurgeon toured the Azraq camp in northern Jordan under heavy Jordanian security with journalists barred. Carson’s campaign also limited access, not providing his itinerary.

After the Azraq visit, Carson said he didn’t learn anything that gives him confidence in authorities’ ability to screen potential terrorists. “What I learned is that you’re going to get a different answer from everybody depending on what their slant is,” he said, reiterating his opposition to allowing any Syrian refugees to come to the United States.

“I always oppose doing unnecessary things, particularly dangerous and costly unnecessary things,” he said.
Carson called on the American people — not the U.S. government — to launch a “humanitarian drive” to raise billions of dollars that officials say is needed to improve conditions for refugees settled across several countries in the Middle East.

All they need is adequate funding. It’s really quite impressive when you go over there and see it,” Carson told the AP, adding that some areas had recreational facilities, schools, electricity and indoor plumbing. “They were a lot happier. They were quite willing to stay there as long as it takes before they can get back home.”

Carson’s visit comes as he tries to strengthen his fluency on international affairs as foreign policy becomes a greater focus in the 2016 presidential contest. Advisers have conceded that his knowledge of global affairs isn’t where it needs to be and have expressed hope that missions like his two-day trip to Jordan will help.

Carson and other Republicans have adopted a harsh tone when discussing President Barack Obama’s plan to welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S. in this budget year. Debate over Syrians fleeing their war-torn country erupted after a series of attacks in Paris earlier this month that raised security concerns across the West.

Carson and his GOP rivals expressed concern that extremists may sneak into the U.S. among them. Last week, he likened blocking potential terrorists posing as Syrian refugees to handling “mad dogs.”

He also suggested that it would be best to absorb Syrian refugees in Middle Eastern host countries, which have given temporary shelter to most of the more than 4 million Syrians who have fled civil war in their country since 2011.

In a separate statement, he described Syrians as “as very hard working, determined people, which should only enhance the overall economic health of the neighboring Arab countries that accept and integrate them into the general population.”

And he broadened his call for financial support beyond Americans: “The humanitarian crisis presented by the fleeing Syrian refugees can be addressed if the nations of the world with resources would provide financial and material support to the aforementioned countries as well as encouragement.”

More than 4 million Syrians fled their homeland since 2011, after a popular uprising erupted against President Bashar Assad and quickly turned into a devastating civil war. Most initially settled in neighboring countries, but conditions there have become increasingly difficult.

Syrian refugees are largely barred from working legally and have to resort to informal, low-paying jobs if they can find employment at all.

Over whelmed host countries, particularly Lebanon and Jordan, have balked at the idea of longer-term integration of refugees. They have complained that they are carrying an unfair burden while the international community’s support has fallen short.

An aid appeal of $4.5 billion for refugees in host countries in 2015 is only about half funded. The cash crunch has created increasingly unbearable conditions for Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and — to a lesser extent — in economically more robust Turkey. In 2015, hundreds of thousands of refugees moved on to Europe in hopes of a better life.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/29/after-visiting-camps-in-jordan-ben-carson-questions-whether-syrian-refugees-want-to-come-to-u-s/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_camp aign=Fire wire%20-% 20HORIZON%2011-29-15%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire#

GOOD NEWS FOR ALL YOU BEEF LOVERS OUT THERE!

Fattest-Ever U.S. Cattle Herd Signals End to Record Beef Prices


 
  • Steers stuffed with cheap corn to limit losses as prices drop
  • Weight gain at slaughter plants biggest in more than a decade




Cattle in the U.S. are now the fattest they’ve ever been, signaling an end to the seven-year run of record beef prices just as losses begin to mount for American feedlot owners.

Tom Fanning, who manages a feedlot herd of 30,000 in Buffalo, Oklahoma, says he loses $100 to $300 on each animal he sells to slaughtering plants, even though they are bigger and produce more meat than ever. Its worse for other producers. 

On average, industry losses began in December and ballooned to $420 a head this month, the Livestock Marketing Information Center estimates.

Cattle futures have plunged 22 percent from an all-time high a year ago as the U.S. herd began a long-awaited expansion and consumers switched to cheaper chicken and pork. That’s squeezed feedlot owners who buy year-old steers and raise them on a diet of mostly corn for more than four months. 

To ease the pain, operators like Fanning are taking advantage of ample, low-cost grain supplies by holding cattle for almost a month longer than normal, which means the animals get bigger and generate more revenue.

“It still makes economic sense to put on as many pounds as efficiently as you can” to minimize losses, said Fanning, 50, who has been managing Buffalo Feeders LLC for 15 years. His cattle spend about 150 days eating grain before they are sold, about 25 days more than two years ago, adding about four pounds of weight gain per day, he said.

Rising Supply


On average last month, the animals weighed 1,390 pounds (630 kilograms) when sold to beef processors, an all-time high, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. The 2.6 percent increase over a year earlier was the biggest annual gain in more than a decade. 

In Iowa, the largest corn-growing state, some cattle have topped 2,000 pounds and are being held 30 to 60 days days longer than normal, said Ed Greiman, who runs a 2,000-head feedlot in Garner, Iowa.

Heavier cattle are helping to boost domestic beef supplies, which had tumbled and sent retail prices soaring. On Nov. 10, the USDA forecast fourth-quarter production will rise 1.8 percent from a year earlier and that output in 2016 will increase 4.8 percent to 24.85 billion pounds, the first gain in six years. 

The U.S. cattle herd had shrunk to the smallest since 1952 after a 2012 drought parched pastures and sent corn futures surging to a record. Spurred by the jump in beef, ranchers are showing signs of rebuilding their inventory

The herd on July 1 was 98.4 million head, up 2 percent from a year earlier and the first increase for that time of year since 2006, the USDA reported on July 25. As of Nov. 1, feedlots held more animals for that time of year since 2012 and were growing at the fastest rate in four years, government data show.

Cheaper Beef


Prospects for more supply are reducing costs for consumers. Wholesale-beef prices have dropped 23 percent from a record in May and on Monday closed at $2.0279 a pound, a 22-month low, USDA data show. Retail ground-beef has dropped for four straight months, the longest slide in five years, to $4.083 a pound, compared with an all-time high of $4.238 in February, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Tyson Foods Inc., the largest U.S. meat processor, said Nov. 23 that a plunge in cattle prices eroded earnings by $70 million in the fiscal fourth quarter ended Oct. 3.

“After several years of significant beef inflation, we look forward to expecting easing of prices in 2016,” Scott M. Colosi, the president and chief financial officer for steakhouse restaurant chain Texas Roadhouse Inc., said during a conference call Nov. 2.

More Demand


Cattle futures for February delivery rose 0.5 percent to close at $1.3385 a pound on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Cheaper beef may boost demand, limiting the decline in prices. The USDA is forecasting domestic consumption will rise to 55.3 pounds per person next year, up from 54.4 pounds in 2015, and that exports will rebound in 2016.

Prices may not drop all that much until warmer weather leads to more outdoor grilling starting around April, partly because retailers are slow to pass along savings to their customers, said Altin Kalo, analyst at Steiner Consulting Group in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Prolonged losses also may discourage feedlots from purchasing year-old cattle, which would eventually reduce their herds and limit supplies for processing plants.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., in a Nov. 18 report, forecasts cattle futures in Chicago have “further downside risk” from weaker domestic demand and slowing U.S. exports because of the strong dollar. Prices will average $1.30 a pound in three months and $1.20 a pound in six months, the bank said. The contract for February delivery closed Wednesday at $1.332.

“Eventually, consumers are going to benefit," said David Kruse, president of CommStock Investments Inc. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

What does it cost to purchase a 'president'?


Saudis  spent  $1.35  million  on  Obama  gifts  in  2014

 

 

'Non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor'

 

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

Nov 28 2015 

Douglas Ernst

obama-saudi-king

Saudi Arabia spent a king’s fortune on gifts for President Obama and his family in 2014.

The State Department said Saudi King Abdullah and top kingdom officials spent $1.35 million on Obama in 2014. The figure was released with its annual list of gifts from foreign governments on Wednesday.
 
Some of the luxury items sent to Obama include a gold and silver wristwatch valued at $18,400, and a “48-inch gold-plated brass replica of the Makkah Clock Tower” valued at $57,000, Yahoo News reported Friday.

Malia and Sasha Obama also received jewelry, earrings and a watch from the Saudi government valued at $80,000.


(Photo: C-Span)

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, left, meets with President Obama Sept. 4, 2015, at the White House (Photo: C-Span)

News of Saudi Arabia’s gift-giving blitz comes just one month after the Obama administration rejected the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. 

TransCanada Corp sought a presidential permit to send more than 800,000 barrels per day to the U.S.

“The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,” Obama said during a Washington press conference Nov. 9, Reuters reported.

Obama previously vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act in February. He met with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud weeks before the decision.

Obama’s veto is bad news for U.S. workers and U.S. energy security,” said Dan Kish, vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, the Daily Caller reported Feb. 24. “It is good news for the new Saudi King, especially if this is what the 'president' promised him when they recently met.” (This former Saudi camel jockey 'king' will find out soon enough that this 'president's' promises are worthless. A liar's promises are worth nothing.)

U.S. law requires 'presidents' to pay a fair-market value for gifts or turn them over to the National Archives or other institutions for storage or display, Yahoo News reported.

The State Department said “non-acceptance [of gifts] would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. government.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/saudis-spent-1-35-million-on-obama-gifts-in-2014/

FORGET ABOUT THE STRUGGLING AMERICANS - FEED THE TERRORISTS

 

OBAMA TO GEORGIA:  GIVE SYRIAN 'REFUGEES' WELFARE NOW



On November 16, Georgia governor Nathan Deal issued an executive order to state agencies, putting an end to any cooperation with the Obama administration when it comes to resettling refugees from the Middle East. 

The state is one of nearly thirty that has told the federal government that it wants no part of Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks. 

Now the administration has fired back with a warning to Deal: Give Syrian refugees their food stamps or else. 

“As long as an applicant submits a SNAP application that includes the applicant’s name, address, and signature, the state agency must accept and process the application to be in compliance with federal law,” Jessica Shahin of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program said in a letter to Georgia officials. (What is NOT being reported here is that there are millions of Americans who are unemployed or the seniors who are trying to get by each month on a small social security check that is far below the national poverty level, and they simply do not have enough funds to purchase the ever increasing prices on foods.  The SNAPS program is cutting benefits to Americans while giving full benefits to these muslim 'refugee' terrorists.)
 
In the letter, Shahin warned Georgia lawmakers to rescind the executive order and begin complying with federal law as it pertains to the SNAP program.  ('Federal law' by these Wash DC bastards applies ONLY to their Wash DC district and NOT to the individual states. DC can go to hell.  The states have the right to disburse the SNAPS funds as they deem appropriate.)  

State officials have yet to respond publicly to the 'warning'. 

In all the (necessary) discussion about the security threat posed by the refugee resettlement program, the financial cost of housing these refugees has gone largely overlooked. Even if there was no security threat whatsoever – an assumption that not even President Obama himself is willing to make (admit to)there is plenty of reason to pause and consider the economic toll these refugees are taking on the country.

According to a report from the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, almost all Middle Eastern refugees are on some form of federal welfare. That includes 68.3% on some form of cash assistance, 73.1% on Medicaid or RMA, and a staggering 91.4% on food stamps.

We are creating a welfare state on top of a welfare state at a time when the majority of Americans don’t even believe we should be accepting refugees from Syria in the first place.  

And let’s not forget that it was 'president' Obama’s ill-fated decisions that tore Syria apart in the first place. Together with Hillary Clinton, this administration decided that it was in the U.S.’s interests to oust Syrian dictator (that's what the USA corporation calls another nation's president while bozo is called a 'president) Bashar Assad, leading to one of the deadliest civil wars in history. 

These refugees are, in many ways, a product of the Obama administration’s terrible Middle Eastern policies. And now Obama comes to us and tells us of our moral responsibility to take these refugees in and pay for them to live in America as though this crisis just “happened.” 
(States rights SUPERCEDE DC's criminal mafia with power legally ONLY in DC and the various territories).  

There will not soon come a day when the Obama administration can prove that Syrian refugees pose no security threat to the United States. But even if they were somehow miraculously able to do so, we have a significant economic interest in keeping them out. 

See more at: 
http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/obama-to-georgia-give-syrian-refugees-welfare-now/

GEORGIA:  JUST SAY "NO" AND MEAN IT!  TAKE YOUR STAND.  IF BOZO WANTS THESE TERRORISTS TO EAT, LET HIM PAY THEIR FOOD BILLS FROM HIS OWN WALLET.  AMERICANS SUPPORT YOU!  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!   30 STATES HAVE SAID "NO"!  DON'T GIVE IN TO THE ENEMY WITHIN OUR NATION.

NOAA’S 'CLIMATE CHANGE' SCIENCE FICTION


NOAA’S 'CLIMATE CHANGE' SCIENCE FICTION 

The environmental intelligence agency ignores satellite data


-
Thursday, November 26, 2015


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. Every day, NOAA analyzes vast amounts of data to predict changes to our climate, weather, oceans and coasts. The agency also publishes monthly temperature averages across the nation and compares those numbers to historical temperature records.

As the nation’s self-proclaimed authority on “environmental intelligence,” NOAA should be held to the highest scientific standards. This means their conclusions should be objective, independent of political consideration and based on all available sources of information.

NOAA’s top official, Kathryn Sullivan, has described the agency’s role as providing “timely, reliably, and actionable information — based on sound science — every day to millions of Americans.”

In testimony before the House Science Committee, NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown, made similar remarks, noting the importance of satellite data. 

He said that NOAA’s ability “to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets come into play.” So why does NOAA leave out satellite data when it releases climate projections?

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. 

The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

Instead, NOAA focused its study on surface temperature monitoring that is often flawed because these sites measure thousands of independent temperature readings and utilize a hodgepodge of different methods that have changed over time. 

For example, measurements from land-based stations can be skewed because of their location and proximity to surrounding heat-holding asphalt in urban areas.

Satellite data, on the other hand, is highly calibrated and provides complete global coverage. For decades, satellites have been used to monitor the earth and collect information. Satellites measure something extremely important — the deep atmosphere. 

The temperature readings collected by satellites often differ from ground monitoring stations and have consistently shown much smaller rates of warming. Yet NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?

NOAA appears to pick and choose only data that confirms their bias. NOAA then disseminates this incomplete data to the media who manufacture alarming headlines but ignore the uncertainty of the conclusions.

Earlier this year, NASA issued a news release stating that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Few media acknowledged the footnote: Scientists were only 38 percent sure this was actually correct. That is less than 50-50.

NOAA fully understands margins of error and works with them on a daily basis. But where are these details in their news releases? While NOAA’s monthly projections usually warn of increased warming, they ignore satellite data that refutes their alarmist statements.

The ability to remain independent of political consideration seems like a minimum requirement for an agency that should provide unbiased scientific information. But NOAA’s habit of picking and choosing data raises serious questions about the agency’s independence. In fact, it shreds NOAA’s credibility.

As a self-proclaimed “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA’s reports should be based only on the best available science that takes into account all sources of data. Unfortunately, NOAA continues to rely upon biased science in pursuit of a predetermined outcome. That’s not good science, it’s science fiction.

This administration is pursuing an extreme political climate change agenda and has made NOAA its accomplice. These are not the actions of an objective agency. NOAA needs to come clean about why it cherry-picked and changed certain data, while ignoring satellite data, to get the results it wanted.

Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/