SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Honey_Bee who wrote (441)12/13/2012 3:29:22 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
He worked as an executive producer and puppeteer for 28 years



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (441)11/24/2013 5:15:22 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
The1Stockman

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Iran Says Deal Recognizes Their ‘Nuclear Rights” – Someone’s Lying

November 24, 2013
By Sara Noble


“My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time.” ~ Neville Chambelain, October 30 1938

Fars News Agency announced today that the nuclear deal between the Super Powers and Iran stopped the enemy (Israel) from creating an atmosphere of Iranophobia. They gloried in what they said is a recognition of their ‘nuclear rights’, something John Kerry said we did not do.

The agreement appears to temporarily (for six months) cut off one path to the bomb if Iran fulfills the agreement and allow inspectors to check their facilities. The near-complete Arak heavy water reactor – IR-40- remains. Iran has agreed to not complete it but they keep it. They keep their centrifuges and can enrich up to 5%. Billions in sanctions have been lifted.



Photo of John Kerry

John Kerry said the agreement does NOT recognize the right of Iran to enrich uranium:

“The first step, let me be clear, does not say that Iran has a right to enrich uranium,” Kerry said.

Fars News Agency, the Iranian News Service, wrote that Iran has been guaranteed their ‘nuclear rights’ in the agreement:

Iran’s right to enrichment has been recognized in two places of the document.

In return, Iran will reciprocate with a series of confidence-building measures.

Iran as a confidence-building measure will not further expand its activities in Arak, Natanz and Fordo in the next six months, but (uranium) enrichment below five percent and production of the relevant enriched material in Fordo and Natanz will continue as before.

Iran will also continue its research and development in its nuclear program.

Hasan Rouhani said Tehran’s enrichment activities would proceed similar to before. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said at a Sunday morning press conference in Geneva that Iran will never stop enriching uranium.

Russia’s Lavorov wanted the sanctions lifted and was pleased with this deal:

“We never recognized unilateral sanctions on Iran anyway,” Lavrov said.

Mr. Obama said last night that he was pleased with the deal and that it would make Israel safer.

The deal lifts $6 to $7 billion in sanctions which we will never get back. It also gives Iranians an additional $4.2 billion in cash.

PM Netanyahu isn’t buying it and described it as an ‘historic mistake:’:

“What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it was a historic mistake,”Netanyahu told his cabinet in public remarks. ”Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step towards obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapon.”

Israel’s Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said:

‘We awoke this morning to a new reality. A reality in which a bad deal was signed with Iran. A very bad deal. If a nuclear suitcase blows up five years from now in New York or Madrid, it will be because of the deal that was signed this morning.’

‘It is important that the world knows: Israel will not be committed to a deal that endangers its very existence,’ Bennett added.

Mr. Obama’s deal might very well have increased the likelihood that war will break out in the Middle East.

The US has been reportedly holding secret meetings with Iran contrary to White House denials. The Geneva talks were likely a facade.

There was a report in November 2012 that talks were going on between the US and Iran. The US team to the secret talks was allegedly led by Obama adviser, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett. Her primary interlocutor, the report said, was the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi. The talks were allegedly taking place in various Gulf states. If true, that is a major deceit.

According to Politico today, ‘Since March, the AP reported, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Jake Sullivan, Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, have engaged in at least five meetings with Iranian officials. A senior administration official confirmed a “limited” number of bilateral meetings in recent months.’

The agreement means the Mullahs will never lose power. It’s a big win for them.

People in the Middle East will lose sleep over a nuclear deal between global powers and Iran, a Saudi foreign policy adviser said on Sunday, signaling the deep unease Sunni Muslim Gulf states have over Western rapprochement with their Shi’ite foe. That was not an official response, the adviser stressed.

Abdullah al-Askar, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Saudi Arabia’s appointed Shoura Council, said:

“The government of Iran, month after month, has proven that it has an ugly agenda in the region, and in this regard no one in the region will sleep and assume things are going smoothly,” Askar said.

In what appears to be another lie, Kerry credited the Obama administration’s tightening of sanctions as part of what brought Iran to the negotiating table. We know as fact that Obama has been lifting sanctions for the past five months. The FBI no longer halts illegal foreign dealings with Iran and they began that about five months ago.

Neville Chamberlain, peace in our time video:



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (441)11/24/2013 5:50:50 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
The1Stockman

  Respond to of 16547
 
“The workers should take over the factories and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine,”

Socialist lawmaker urges workers to 'take over' Boeing Newly elected city council member calls on citizens to 'join struggle'




SEATTLE – She hasn’t taken office yet, but Seattle’s newly elected socialist city council member already is offering solutions to the city’s problems that would make even the most liberal Democrat blush.

Amid a severe rift between Boeing machinists and management, Kshama Sawant – the first self-declared socialist elected to city-wide office in Seattle in a century – essentially ripped a page from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifestoand urged a cheering crowd of union supporters Monday night to rise up against their oppressors.




“The workers should take over the factories and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine,” Sawant said at a downtown plaza, according to Seattle’s KIRO-TV.

Last week, the machinists rejected a contract that would guarantee jobs for eight years at Boeing’s Everett plant, just north of Seattle, building the company’s new 777X airliner. In exchange, new machinists would give up their guaranteed company pensions.

In response to the rejection, Boeing management has discussed taking the jobs to other states.

Sawant, a former software engineer from India who lectures in economics at Seattle University and Seattle Central Community College, calls Boeing’s threat “nothing short of economic terrorism because it’s going to devastate the state’s economy.”

A takeover by the workers, which she calls “democratic ownership,”
is the answer, she contends.

Rising star Dr. Ben Carson urges Americans to reclaim the vision cast by the nation’s founders in “America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made the Nation Great”

“The only response we can have if Boeing executives do not agree to keep the plant here is for the machinists to say the machines are here, the workers are here, we will do the job, we don’t need the executives,” she said, according to KIRO.

“The executives don’t do the work, the machinists do,” maintained Sawant, a member of the Socialist Alternative Party.

She explained to the Seattle TV station after her speech that once the workers “take over,” they can make better decisions about what to build.

“We can re-tool the machines to produce mass transit like buses, instead of destructive, you know, war machines,” she told KIRO.


Lenin statue in Seattle's Fremont District

The call to take over Boeing is in line with the policy of the Socialist Alternative Party, the U.S. branch of the British-based Trotskyist international organization the Committee for a Workers’ International.

On its website, the party says that as “capitalism moves deeper into crisis, a new generation of workers and youth must join together to take the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control to end the ruling elites’ global competition for profits and power.”

The alternative Seattle Weekly said of Savant in August when she was running for office: “We like her because she’s an honest-to-god socialist who’s willing to throw a few Molotov cocktails into the cloistered hatch-pits of our terribly staid civic ‘debates.’”

Sawant, who has referred to herself as a Marxist, this month became the first socialist to win a city-wide election in Seattle since Anna Louise Strong was elected to the School Board in 1916, unseating a four-term incumbent.

In the Pacific Northwest, regarded as a progressive hotbed in the early 20th century, the Communist Party played a key role in the development of some of its most powerful unions.

In 1936, the U.S. postmaster general, James Farley, joked that there “are 47 states in the union, and the Soviet of Washington.”

More than 20 years after the revolutions in Eastern Europe toppled ubiquitous statues of communist leaders, Seattle features a statue of the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin.

The Socialist Alternative Party insists the “dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were perversions of what socialism is really about.”

“We are for democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives,” the party says.

‘Join the struggle’

Sawant won her seat on the city council this month on a platform of anti-capitalism, workers’ rights and a $15 per-hour minimum wage for Seattle workers.

An introduction on her campaign website charges that the Democratic Party “pays lip service to working people” and calls for citizens to “join the struggle for democratic socialism.”


Kshama Sawant (votesawant.org)

Both Democrats and Republicans, her campaign says, “serve the interests of a tiny financial aristocracy.”

“The Sawant campaign is an opportunity to break out from the prison of corporate politics.”

She urges the building of “a mass workers’ party drawing together ordinary people, youth, and activists from Occupy, unions, and environmental, civil rights, and women’s rights campaigns to provide a movement-based opposition to the corporate political parties.”

“We live in one of the richest cities in the richest nation on earth,” her website says. “There is no shortage of resources. Capitalism has failed the 99%. Another world is both possible and necessary – a socialist world based on the needs of humanity and the environment. Please support our campaign and join the struggle for democratic socialism!”

Sawant received a tip of the hat from a columnist for the Guardian newspaper of London who declared that her election shows “socialism can play in America.”

Ari Paul wrote that “her election does show that not only was she not afraid to be a socialist, people were not afraid of electing one.”

“It’s not just that socialism is coming into fashion; people are finding out that maybe they’ve been socialists this whole time and didn’t know it,” he said.

‘Taking over’

While there is an independent socialist member of the U.S. Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, lawmakers who lean to the far left in Congress, nevertheless, have been conscious of the fact that using terms such as “socialism” or “socializing” are not politically advantageous.


Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., for example, found herself in an awkward position in a House hearing in 2008 on rising oil prices.

She was challenging the president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, to guarantee that the prices consumers pay will go down if the government permitted the oil companies to drill wherever they want off of U.S. shores.

Hofmeister replied: “I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down.”

The Shell exec said paying $5 at the pump “will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.”

Waters responded, in part, “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …”

Realizing she had uttered a politically provocative term, the congresswoman paused to collect her thoughts.

She continued: “Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”

The oil executives responded by saying they’ve seen this before, in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.

See Waters in 2008 hearing:

Read more at wnd.com



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (441)1/14/2014 9:05:54 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Respond to of 16547
 
Telling the truth gets you fired in this regime. This is why Gen. Ham had to be pushed aside.

.....................................................................................................................................................
The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

By James Rosen January 14, 2014
foxnews.com



Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

"My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta."

Ham's account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under "Top Secret" clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America's national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous "happenstance" that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, "they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House." Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee's hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night -- as Obama's hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch -- that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

"In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta," McKeon asked, "was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?" Ham initially testified that there was some "peripheral" discussion of this subject, but added "at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for."

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack."

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack."

HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."

WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?"

HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?"

"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."

Ham's declassified testimony further underscores that Obama's earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show "The View," when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been "an act of terrorism," the president hedged, saying: "Well, we're still doing an investigation."

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM's Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to "a considerable event unfolding in Libya." Bristol's next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that "there was a fight going on" at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: "So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -"

BRISTOL: "Yes, sir."

WENSTRUP: "-- on the United States?"

BRISTOL: "Yes, sir. ... We referred to it as the attack."

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an "interim" report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible -- a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.

"He is in the president's Cabinet," said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. "The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what's going on, and I honestly think that that's why you have seen -- beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans' lives -- is that the American people feel misled."

"Leon Panetta should have spoken up," agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have."

Neither Panetta's office nor the White House responded to Fox News' requests for comment.