repo4sale Loc: 89041

Bac=Forecast GDP growth of 1.7% for 2013,
2.6% for 2014 and
3.2% for 2015
Fed will maintain a low % rate
Fed tapering Mar2Dec2014
Inflation not an issue
Home prices are still rising however the pace of increase is slowing, if this continues it may cause a drop in consumer and business confidence and hiring
 

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Duck Dynasty is the BEST. Obama is the Worst!

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Want to spot a liar? Just ask them

Don't rely on body language to spot a liar. Just ask them.
By Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent4:49PM GMT 13 Dec 2013
There is one thing that habitual liars can be counted on to tell the truth about: their own dishonesty, according to researchers.

Hundreds of studies have suggested that it is possible to tell if someone is lying through body language. Rubbing the nose nervously, tugging at an earlobe, sweating and avoiding eye contact are all signs someone is lying, we're told.

But according to new research none of these observations are necessary.

RELATED ARTICLES
Are you right-brained or left-brained?
Health warning: laughter could leave you in stitches
Why Wagner gives you a headache - pain of migraine inspired composer
The best way to discover if someone is lying to you is just to ask them. A study has found that people who regularly tell lies are happy to admit as much.

Frequent fibbers are more likely to possess “psychopathic” traits such as a lack or remorse or guilt, which means that they will own up to unscrupulous behaviour, scientists said.

To test the theory, 527 people were asked how often they had lied in the previous 24 hours. When the total number of lies was totted up, it turned out that five per cent of the volunteers had admitted to telling 40 per cent of the lies.

Scientists then examined whether the dishonesty of these self-confessed liars would be born out in a laboratory test.

Subjects were asked to roll dice and received a sum of money depending on the number they said they had rolled. Because the researchers were unable to see the actual numbers, participants were free to cheat and report higher scores.

Those who had already admitted to lying more frequently had higher winnings in the dice test, indicating that they had told the truth about their dishonesty. Bruno Verschuere, an author of the study at the University of Amsterdam, said: “The fact that participants who indicated lying often actually did lie more often in the dice test demonstrates that they were honest about their dishonesty.

“It may be that frequent liars show more psychopathic traits and therefore have no trouble admitting to lying frequently.”

Previous studies have found that on average people lie twice a day.

The new study, published in the journal Human Communication Research, suggests that this average is distorted by frequent liars and that a large proportion of people do not lie at all.

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Thank you for contribution to this "blog"...

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Democrats=Lie all the time and don't fit well in the business community since a liar = lawsuits = civil judgments = lost $$
Obama the liar from birth!!!

Republicans that don't lie=smart business people that have no history of lies and make a lot of money for their company & net worth. Mit Romney the Mormon business genius from birth!!

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Who is the 2013 Person of the Year?

Hillary Clinton?

According to Barbara Walters and the liberals at ABC News -- Hillary Clinton is the most fascinating Person of 2013.

Disgusting!

Have they forgotten about the 4 dead Americans in Benghazi?

Have they forgotten how our Ambassador came under attack from an Al Qaeda-led mob of terrorists, while Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration shamefully chose to abandon them -- leaving them to die?

And have they forgotten how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actively trying to cover-up the crimes of Benghazi?

Are you as disgusted as I am?

If so, I'm asking you to click here and immediately sign our Protest Petition to Barbara Walters and ABC news.

With your help, Stop Hillary PAC is fighting back. We are going to create a firestorm with thousands, if not millions, Protest Petitions to let Barbara Walters and ABC News know exactly how disgusted the American people are about their choice.

You see, Stop Hillary PAC was created for this very purpose -- to fight back against Hillary and her cheerleaders in the liberal media, and to ensure she never becomes president of the United States.

So, will you join me in fighting back by signing our Protest Petition today?

Your Protest Petition, along with thousands more, will be delivered directly to Barbara Walters and ABC News demanding to know exactly what they were thinking naming Hillary Clinton person of the year for 2013.

Your Protest Petition will register your disgust with their shameful and disgusting decision, while reminding them of the dead Americans in Benghazi that surely don't think Hillary Clinton is "fascinating."

And finally, we will register your disgust by ensuring we get a response from ABC News. We won't rest until we hear back.

One last thing: In order for us to make the maximum impact we need to deliver hundreds-of-thousands of Protest Petitions, if not millions. That's where your continued support comes in.

So after you sign your Protest Petition, will you help us have maximum impact and reach our goal by making a special, end of the year contribution to Stop Hillary PAC?

Just $5 will help us distribute 2,000 more Protest Petitions to your fellow Americans. Your $25 end of the year gift will help us distribute 10,000 Protest Petitions. And if you could afford it, $100 would help us send out a whopping 40,000 Protest Petitions.

Just imagine what Barbara Walters will do when we drop over a million petitions in her lap at ABC News.

But I can't do it without your help.

So please, click here to register your disgust with Barbara Walters and ABC News by signing your Protest Petition today.

And make a generous gift of at least $5 -- or even $100 if you can afford it.

Let them know we haven't forgotten Benghazi, we are disgusted with their choice and we are fighting back.

Sincerely,

Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC

repo4sale Loc: 89041

How Do You Know When President Obama Is Lying? MSNBC Won't Tell You
----------------------------------
I was a young person when I first heard the quip: "How do you know when the President is lying? His lips are moving." At the time, President Nixon was expanding the war in Vietnam to other countries and deploying the White House "plumbers" to commit crimes against antiwar leakers.

Forty years have passed. Sadly, these days, often when I see President Obama moving his lips, I assume he's lying.

Like Nixon, our current president is prolonging an endless, borderless and counter-productive war ("on terror") and waging a parallel war against "national security" leakers that makes the plumbers' burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office look almost quaint.

The World War I vintage Espionage Act, originally used to imprison socialists for making antiwar speeches, has been used by the administration against whistleblowers with a vengeance unprecedented in history: eight leakers have been charged with Espionage under Obama, compared to three under all previous presidents. The Obama administration has prosecuted not a single CIA torturer, but has imprisoned a CIA officer who talked about torture with a journalist. National Security Agency official Thomas Drake, who was unable to get abuses fixed internally, now has a criminal record for communicating with a reporter years ago about sweeping domestic surveillance.

So there I was watching Obama's lips move about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden at a June 27 press conference. Saying he wouldn't be "scrambling military jets to go after a 29-year-old hacker," Obama added that he would not "start wheeling and dealing and trading on a whole host of other issues, simply to get a guy extradited."

I didn't believe a word of it.

Given Obama's war on whistleblowers and journalists who utilize them, and given the Army's abusive treatment of military whistleblower Bradley Manning (apparently aimed at getting him to implicate WikiLeaks), it's inconceivable that Obama was truly blasé about Snowden. To deter future whistleblowers, Snowden would have to be caught and made an example of - and probably mistreated (like Manning, in hopes of getting him to turn against WikiLeaks and even journalist Glenn Greenwald).

As his lips were moving, Obama knew well that he would go to extreme lengths to prevent this articulate young man from securing asylum in some Latin American country, where he could continue to inform the world's media about the Surveillance State that has blossomed alongside the Warfare State under the Bush and Obama administrations.

That Obama wasn't truthful became clear when the U.S. campaign of "wheeling and dealing" led to possible asylum countries retreating in fear one after another (Vice President Biden was deployed to pressure Ecuador's president by phone). And even clearer with last week's outrageous, international law-breaking that effectively forced down the presidential plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales.

And if Obama eventually does scramble jets to force down a plane with Snowden on board, the commander-in-chief will be applauded for taking bold and decisive action by mainstream TV talking heads, "national security" experts and the opposition he seems most intent on pleasing: conservatives. Criticism from civil libertarian and peace voices (or unions and environmentalists, for that matter) has rarely daunted Obama.

The bipartisan consensus in support of our bloated Military/Surveillance State -- which so undermines our society as a whole -- is reflected in Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as mainstream media.

When it comes to issues of U.S. militarism and spying, the allegedly "progressive" MSNBC often seems closer to the "official network of the Obama White House" than anything resembling an independent channel. With a few exceptions (especially Chris Hayes), MSNBC has usually reacted to expanded militarism and surveillance by downplaying the abuses or defending them.

Had McCain or Romney defeated Obama and implemented the exact same policies, treating whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden as foreign espionage agents, one would expect MSNBC hosts to be loudly denouncing the Republican abuses of authority.

But with Obama in power, a number of MSNBC talking heads have reacted to the Snowden disclosures like Fox News hosts did when they were in hysterical damage control mode for Bush - complete with ridiculously fact-free claims and national chauvinism that we've long come to expect from the "fair & balanced" channel.

As Snowden arrived in Russia from Hong Kong, MSNBC host Ed Schultz blustered on about Snowden as a "punk" and "coward." Railing about the "security of the country" in tones Hannity would approve of, Schultz questioned Snowden's patriotism and credibility, asking: "If the United States of America is doing something so egregiously wrong in its surveillance program, how come he's the only one speaking up?

In O'Reilly-like blissful ignorance, Schultz seemed unaware of the three NSA whistleblowers who'd loudly spoken up way earlier than Snowden -- and gathered for an illuminating group interview with USA Today a week before his tirade.

I watched one MSNBC host function as an auxiliary prosecutor in Obama's Justice Department, going after Snowden -- while trying to link WikiLeaks and journalist Glenn Greenwald to criminal flight.

MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry has been condemning Snowden by contrasting him with civil disobedients who "love their country" and submit to arrest -- while Snowden just wants to "save his own skin." She proclaimed: "This is different. This is dangerous to our nation." Should we similarly dismiss Dan Ellsberg, who leaked the top secret Pentagon Papers to a dozen newspapers in 1971 by going on the lam from the FBI. Or Watergate's "Deep Throat," who saved his own skin by hiding his identity for 30 years after leaking secrets that helped crash the Nixon presidency?

In a bizarre monologue attacking Snowden (who's risked plenty, in my view), Harris-Perry hailed those who engage in civil disobedience for being willing "to risk your own freedom, your own body in order to bring attention to something that needs to be known. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested, attacked, smeared. Nelson Mandela went to prison for 27 years." (My emphasis.)

Nelson Mandela? He wasn't a civil disobedient who gave himself up. He was a fugitive, fleeing the apartheid police. He was on the lam domestically, like Snowden is now internationally. And some reports indicate that South African authorities were able to nab Mandela thanks to the U.S. CIA (one of the agencies now on the hunt for Snowden).

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has also disappointed. After doing a typically thorough presentation on the force-down of President's Morales' plane, she ended her report by expressing displeasure only that Washington had apparently gotten allies to go out on the limb "for nothing." Her objection to the harassment seemed to be: it hadn't succeeded. I didn't hear opposition to the action had Snowden actually been on board and apprehended.

The Snowden/NSA story proves once again that -- especially on so-called "national security" issues -- we need strong, independent media not enmeshed with the corporate/political power structure and not allied with one of the two corporate parties.

We can't count on MSNBC to heed the lesson taught by legendary independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone, after years reporting from Washington: "All governments lie and nothing they say should be believed."

* * *
Jeff Cohen was an MSNBC pundit and senior producer in 2002-3 until being terminated for political reasons, along with Phil Donahue, on the eve of the Iraq invasion. He is director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and author of "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media." He cofounded the online action group RootsAction.org, which has petitioned for Snowden.

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester
---------------------lie lie lie----------------
The sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”
— President Obama, in the third presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012

As the saying goes, success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan. And if there ever is an orphan in Washington these days, it is that odd duck known as “sequestration.”
We’ve earlier written that there are bipartisan fingerprints over the looming defense cuts that Mitt Romney has sought to pin on President Obama. Now, in the final presidential debate, Obama sought to toss the hot potato of sequestration — the process that is forcing those defense cuts and reductions in domestic spending — into Congress’s lap.
Fortunately, there is a detailed and contemporaneous look at the debt ceiling deal that led to the current budget crunch: Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics.” The book clearly had the full cooperation of top White House and congressional officials. With the help of our colleague, we took a tour through the relevant sections in order to determine the accuracy of the president’s statement.

The Facts
The battle over raising the debt ceiling consumed Washington in the summer of 2011, with Republicans refusing to agree to raise it unless spending was cut by an equivalent amount. Obama pressed but failed to get an agreement on raising revenue as part of the package. Woodward’s book details the efforts to come up with an enforcement mechanism that would make sure the cuts took place — and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.
Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.
Short version: The White House proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, with Sperling calling it an “automatic sequester,” though initially it was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Boehner was “nervous” about using it as a budget tool.

Page 326 (July 26):
At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.
“We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.
“What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically.
“Sequestration.”
Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”
Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.
What would the impact be?
They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.
Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.
“This is ridiculous,” Reid said.
That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.
“I get it,” Reid said finally.
Short version: Once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that only had spending cuts and sold Harry Reid on the idea.

Page 339:
Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seems tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from Defense, and the other half from domestic programs. There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense.
Short version: This is the third reference to the White House putting together the plan for sequester. Granted, they are using language from a congressional law from a quarter-century earlier, but that seems a thin reed on which to say this came from Congress. In fact, Lew had been a policy advisor to then House Speaker Tip O’Neill from 1979 to 1987, and so was familiar with the law.

Page 344 (July 30):
The president and [White House chief of staff William] Daley were on the patio outside Daley’s office with [adviser David] Plouffe, [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner, Lew and Sperling when they got word that Biden was making progress with [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell. It looked as if Republicans were ready to agree to a Defense/non-Defense sequester in the trigger.
Plouffe couldn’t believe it. These guys were so afraid of increasing revenues that they’re willing to put Defense on the chopping block? Republicans’ revenue phobia was so intense that they would sell out the Pentagon.
“This is a deal we can probably live with,” Obama said, willing to do almost anything to salvage something and prevent catastrophe.
Short version: Republicans agreed to the White House proposal for a sequester.

Page 346 (July 30):
At 9 p.m. on Saturday night, Boehner’s staff got their first real look at the proposal negotiated by Biden and McConnell.
[Boehner policy director Brett] Loper had been in regular contact with [McConnell deputy chief of staff] Rohit Kumar about the progress of the negotiations, but now he had paper, so he drafted the Republican staff from the House Budget Committee and they pulled an all-nighter trying to understand the plan and to identify its shortcomings.
It was a challenge, because nobody in the office had operated under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings rules, which dated back to the 1980s. Loper spent the night trying to get his arms around the proposal.
Short version: Republicans had to work through the night to understand the White House proposal.
We asked the White House if officials disputed any part of Woodward’s narrative and did not get a response. Spokeswoman Amy Brundage issued the following statement:
“The only reason that a sequester is in place is because both sides in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — voted for it in the Budget Control Act to force Congress to act. In fact, 2 out of 3 Republicans in Congress — including Congressman Ryan — voted for it and many praised it at the time. The President was making the point that the sequester was never intended to be policy, and that Congress must act to replace it with balanced deficit reduction. They can and should do that.
“In addition, the notion that we wanted the sequester is false. The fact of the matter is that we wanted a trigger that included balance and specifically asked more from the wealthiest individuals on the revenue side. Congressional Republicans refused.”


The Pinocchio Test
No one disputes the fact that no one wanted sequestration, or that ultimately a bipartisan vote in Congress led to passage of the Budget Control Act. But the president categorically said that sequestration was “something that Congress has proposed.”
Woodward’s detailed account of meetings during the crisis, clearly based on interviews with key participants and contemporaneous notes, make it clear that sequestration was a proposal advanced and promoted by the White House.
In sum: Gene Sperling brought up the idea of a sequester, while Jack Lew sold Harry Reid on the idea and then decided to use the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman language (which he knew from his days of working for Tip O’Neill) as a template for sequester. The proposal was so unusual for Republicans that staffers had to work through the night to understand it.
Oddly, Lew in Tampa on Thursday, publicly asserted the opposite: “There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger…. [It] was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure at the end.”
This prompted Woodward to go over his notes and interviews once again, to make sure he had gotten it right.
“After reviewing all the interviews and the extensive material I have on this issue, it looks like President Obama told a whopper,” Woodward said. “Based on what Jack Lew said in Florida today, I have asked the White House to correct the record.”
We had been wavering between Three and Four Pinocchios. But in light’s of Lew’s decision to doubledown on Obama’s claim, we agree it’s a whopper.

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Three key lessons from the Obama administration's drone lies
The axiom that political officials abuse their power and lie to the public when operating in the dark is proven yet again.
-----------------------------------------
Barack Obama and his new defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, left, listen to the new CIA director, John Brennan, at the White House on 7 January. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP
For years, senior Obama officials, including the president himself, have been making public claims about their drone program that have just been proven to be categorically false. The evidence of this falsity is so conclusive that even establishment sources are using unusually harsh language - including "lies" - to describe Obama's statements. McClatchy's national security reporter, Jonathan Landay, obtained top-secret intelligence documents showing that "contrary to assurances it has deployed US drones only against known senior leaders of al-Qaida and allied groups, the Obama administration has targeted and killed hundreds of suspected lower-level Afghan, Pakistani and unidentified 'other' militants in scores of strikes in Pakistan's rugged tribal area." That article quotes drone expert Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations as saying that "McClatchy's findings indicate that the administration is 'misleading the public about the scope of who can legitimately be targeted.'"

In his own must-read article at Foreign Policy about these disclosures, Zenko writes - under the headline: "Finally, proof that the United States has lied in the drone wars" - that "it turns out that the Obama administration has not been honest about who the CIA has been targeting with drones in Pakistan" and that the McClatchy article "plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides - that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al-Qaida who pose an imminent threat of attack on the US homeland - is false." Beyond the obvious harms of having the president and his administration continuously lie to the public about such a crucial matter, Zenko explains that these now-disproven claims may very well make the drone strikes illegal since assertions about who is being targeted were "essential to the legal foundations on which the strikes are ultimately based: the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force and the UN Charter's right to self-defense." Marcy Wheeler uses the documents to show how claims about drones from other key officials, including Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, are also unquestionably false.

Both Landay's article and Zenko's analysis should be read for the details, but I want to highlight the three key points from this:

(1) The Obama administration often has no idea who they are killing.

This has long been the most amazing aspect of the drone debate to me. Not even the CIA, let alone ordinary citizens, has any idea of the identity of many of the people they are targeting for death. Despite this central ignorance, huge numbers of people walk around in some sort of zombie-like state repeatedly spouting the mantra that "Drones are Good because We are Killing the Terrorists" - even though the CIA itself, let alone citizens defending its killings, have no clue who is even being targeted. It has long been known that Obama (like Bush before him) approved the use of so-called "signature strikes", where the identity of the target is not known but they are targeted for death anyway "based on a 'pattern of life' analysis – intelligence on their behavior suggesting that an individual is a militant" (the New York Times reported that "the joke [at the State Department] was that when the CIA sees 'three guys doing jumping jacks', the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp" and that "men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers - but they might also be farmers").

But these McClatchy documents make clear just how extreme this ignorance often is, even after the fact:

The documents also show that drone operators weren't always certain who they were killing despite the administration's guarantees of the accuracy of the CIA's targeting intelligence and its assertions that civilian casualties have been 'exceedingly rare.'"


Zenko adds: "even the US intelligence community does not necessarily know who it has killed; it is forced to use fuzzy categories like 'other militants' and 'foreign fighters'." Targeting people without knowing their identity is as dubious morally as it is legally, which is why, Zenko explains, "No US government official has ever openly acknowledged the practice of such 'signature strikes' because it is so clearly at odds with the bedrock principle of distinction required for using force within the laws of armed conflict." How can any minimally rational person continue to walk around defending Obama's drone kills on the ground that they are killing The Terrorists or that civilian deaths are rare when even the government, let alone these defenders, often have no clue who is being targeted and then killed?

(2) Whisteblowers are vital for transparency and accountability, which is precisely why the Obama administration is waging a war on them.

Here is yet another example where we obtained proof of the falsity of the government's claims, and possibly illegal actions, for only one reason: a whistleblower leaked top secret documents to a journalist, who then published them. When you combine an impotent Congress, a supine media, and a subservient federal judiciary - the institutions ostensibly designed to check excessive executive branch secrecy - government leakers have really have become the only reliable means for learning about the lies and bad acts of political officials. And that's precisely why the Obama administration is waging an unprecedented war against them. Yesterday on Democracy Now, New York Times national security reporter Mark Mazzetti explained to Amy Goodman how this whistleblower war - by design - is impeding basic investigative journalism:


"AMY GOODMAN: And you, as a reporter, Mark - we see the greatest crackdown on whistleblowers that we have ever seen under any president: President Obama's administration is going after more whistleblowers than all presidential administrations combined in the past. And the role of journalists, how do you feel, as you try to cover these issues? Do you feel the crackdown?

"MARK MAZZETTI: It's harder. There's no question. It's harder and harder. People are - this crackdown has perhaps had its intended effect, which was maybe not to go prosecute the cases that have been brought, but also to scare others into not talking. And so, I find that in the last couple years covering national security issues, you just find people who were perhaps once more eager to talk or willing to talk, for reasons that- not just because they were whistleblowers, but because they thought it was important for reporters to have context and information about some of these operations -those people are increasingly less likely to talk.

"AMY GOODMAN: And you, yourself, being prosecuted or put under a kind of spotlight from the administration?

"MARK MAZZETTI: I mean, it's certainly worrisome for us and is worrisome that, you know, they go after - they go after sources, and it brings the reporters into it, as well. I think we're at a critical time here to - you know, hopefully this ends. But, you know, once there is a momentum in some of these cases, the Justice Department works in its own ways, and so people, once they make cases, they tend to try to make other cases. And so, that's what some -that's what's concerning for us."

There is no doubt that this is not only the primary effect, but also the primary purpose, of Obama's vindictive though highly selective attacks on leakers: to create a climate of fear to deter whistleblowers and journalists who think about exposing the bad acts and lies of the government (leaking to glorify the President remains permissible and encouraged). As Mazzetti suggests, the traditional sources for national security investigative reporters have dried up and the journalists themselves are frightened about reporting on these matters. All of this from a President who vowed to have the Most Transparent Administration Ever and from a political movement that once professed such horror at the secrecy abuses of Nixon and Bush.

(3) Secrecy ensures both government lies and abuses of power.

That the Obama administrations' claims about its drone program have proven to be false should be viewed as anything but surprising. Aside from the potent impulse for governments to lie to their citizenry about what they do, secrecy in particular renders inevitable - not possible, not probable, but inevitable - both abuses of power and systematic lying. And secrecy has been the hallmark of the Obama administration generally and its drone killings in particular. A recent Washington Post article - headlined: "Drone use remains cloaked despite Obama's pledge for more transparency" - discussed Obama's repeatedly unfulfilled promises for more openness and explained:

"But there is no indication that moves have been made in that direction, and the White House has not taken a public position on any legislative initiatives [for greater transparency]. The administration has continued to contest legal challenges to the program's secrecy. It has argued that national security concerns and the sensitivity of foreign partners who allow strikes on their territory preclude public explanations of how targets are selected and follow-up reports on who is killed."

So extreme is this secrecy and the abuses that it is spawning that even former Obama officials, such as former Clinton State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter, are vehemently objecting. Slaughter told the Post:


"The idea that this president would leave office having dramatically expanded the use of drones - including [against] American citizens - without any public standards and no checks and balances . . . that there are no checks, and there is no international agreement; I would find that to be both terrible and ultimately will undermine a great deal of what this president will have done for good . . . .I cannot believe this is what he wants to be his legacy."

Just to get a sense for how inevitable government lies are when political officials can operate in secret, consider the McClatchy revelation that "the [secret CIA] reports estimated there was a single civilian casualty, an individual killed in an April 22, 2011, strike in North Waziristan". Aside from the fact that, as Zenko noted, this proves Brennan's public claim of no civilian casualties during this period to be a lie, and independently is a claim that can be made only by virtue of Obama's warped re-definition of "militant" to mean any military-age male in a strike zone, the demonstrated truth is that this exact drone strike killed "five women and four children". So here you have Brennan lying to the public about civilian deaths, and the CIA lying in its own documents - all enabled by the radical wall of secrecy behind which this all functions.

That secrecy is the linchpin of abuses of government power is as central a political principle as exists. This week, WikiLeaks released a serachable catalog of millions of once-secret but now-declassified documents and highlighted an incredibly revealing transcript of a 1975 meeting between then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Turkish officials. The US Congress had just enacted an arms embargo on Turkey in response to its aggressive actions in Cyprus, and Kissinger, at this meeting, made clear that the Ford administration opposed the embargo and was committed to finding a way to get arms and other aid to Turkey. When a Turkish official suggested that Kissinger enter into a secret agreement for European countries to provide the arms, this is what was said:

kissinger wikileaks
People who exercise power inevitably abuse it when they can wield it in secret. They inevitably lie about what they do when they can act in the dark. This is just basic human nature, and applies even to the most kind-hearted leaders, even ones who are charming and wonderful family men. This is what makes pervasive secrecy and a lack of oversight and accountability so dangerous. It's what makes it particularly dangerous when the powers in question are ones highly susceptible to abuse, such as the power to target people for execution.

For that reason, it's entirely unsurprising that the Obama administration got caught making plainly false statements about its killing program. But for the same reason, it's very significant that it has been caught. In light of this evidence, any journalists that continue to rely on US government statements about its killing program are revealing themselves to be eager propagandists, willing to be lied to and help amplify those lies (the same was true of journalists who continued to rely on government statements about "militants" being killed even after they knew how Obama officials had broadened that term to the point of meaninglessness). How many times do we have to learn these same lessons before recognizing their universality?

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Lies, Lawlessness and License – The Obama Legacy?
-----------------------------------
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” – Unknown

Flanked by dutiful reporters Barack Obama exclaimed to the American public on December 3, 2013, that as long he is President, the law, (ObamaCare) will not be repealed. Adding defiance to the legacy of lies and lawlessness raises the all-important question – has the authority of the legislative and judicial branches of our government been nullified and concentrated from henceforth in the president? Isn’t that a dictatorship?



Entire websites are engaged in compiling accurate lists of Obama’s lies, but since everything he says is on public record we already know that it wouldn’t require a forensic expert to prove he has repeatedly lied over the past five years.

His unilateral changes to the ObamaCare legislation have now raised a new concern – lawlessness. Could it be that the Harvard law professor does not know that only the legislature can modify laws they have previously passed? Or is it more likely that he just doesn’t care?



The attack on religious organizations and his pronouncement that same sex marriage is perfectly reasonable are summary proof that he acts from a position of license, rather than any commonly known system of morality.

Where is all this heading?

In a recent article on American Prophet.org one of our contributing writers known only as Prophecy Dude said something that has been resonating with many across our nation. In an article entitled “Culture Change: Why is the US Military Getting a Makeover?” Dude asks the question –

“Did Obama change this nation or did he tap into a dam of inevitability and unleash what was already there? Is he timely in reflecting the accurate heart for where America was already headed? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

As attitudes about morality change and integrity is substituted for the loose idea of ‘live and let live’ it is clear that Obama is tapping into the inevitability.

A prime example of what kind of water is in that dam can be seen in the remarks of leftist pundit and CNN columnist L Z Granderson who told audiences that all politicians lie, but Barack Obama’s lies are OK with Americans because we know he has our best interest at heart. Wow!

As the president jacks up the toxicity of the Kool Aid there will always be those who understand that Obama’s lies are vested in his own interests – not ours. A far more important question is, what are we going to do about it?

Granderson’s philosophy and his mitigation for Barack Obama seems fully entrenched in the black community and among liberals and leftists, but for all those who haven’t, as yet, given up the freedom to think on their own, the idea that good intentions pave the way for gross lying, immorality and bad legislation is fully unacceptable.

When carried to its furthest extreme, how does such a philosophy play out? Can we rob banks knowing that the end produces a fine cash flow we heretofore were without - thus justifying the means? Can we commit every crime, cheat and live like animals as long as the end justifies the means.

Obama reaches out to touch someone!

That complacency gives rise to despots and dictators has long passed from theory to law in the historical record of nations. America is proving to be no exception to the rule. Only when people are jogged or jolted from their sleepy perches do they become interventional if not outright revolutionary.

Even as Obama goes on his twenty one day offensive and selling campaign for ObamaCare, about five million Americans have had their health care plans knocked out from under them. Many more are yet to be touched by the obsession of this president. Will that be enough? Will they act?

Senate Republican Mitch McConnell says the ObamaCare legislation is “broken beyond repair,” he also asserts that only a full repeal followed by a new bill can stop the confusion. The answer to McConnell from most of America is probably’ “OK –Let’s get cracking.”

Must we get whacked before we attack?

In a scene much like a punching match between two adolescents we are busy trying to decide -who started it. Against overwhelming odds the Congress is squeezed between a liberal senate and a leftist president, as we try to hold off the flood waters of Obama’s broken dam until the 2014 mid-term elections which may bring the senate back to the right. In the interim millions are getting the feel for ObamaCare right where it counts – the wallet.

If we can’t knock the flute from the pied piper’s hand, how about a noise to counter his refrains, a deafening noise to drown out the piper’s melody.

Can America wake long enough to get our big sound together?

If we act now perhaps we will see the great Obama apology-tour; return to where it ought to be – right here at home. We would accept an apology from this president for leading the nation to the place where we are a second rate power in the world and for giving our youth the worst example of lawlessness since the days of Al Capone.

The great King Solomon said in his lamentations – “To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.” (La 3: 36) How much approval can Barack Obama win from God or America for subverting an entire nation?

repo4sale Loc: 89041

The Death of Obama's "Noble Lie"
The disastrous ObamaCare rollout unmasks liberalism's paternalistic dishonesty.
-----------------------------
The Death of Obama's "Noble Lie"
Matt Welch|Dec. 16, 2013 9:00 am

Back in 2009, to accuse President Barack Obama of lying about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was to crawl onto a pretty lonely branch. In December of that year, when I leveled the charge in response to the president's knowing mischaracterization of the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of his signature piece of legislation, I was called "flagrantly dishonest" by none other than the (rightly respected) civil liberties blogger/reporter Glenn Greenwald.

As recently as November 2012-more than two years after the administration published grandfathering regulations as part of its health care legislation, rendering ludicrous the president's frequently repeated pledge that "if you like your health plan you can keep it"-much of the liberal commentariat was calling the electoral contest between Obama and Republican Mitt Romney a referendum on political honesty. The only way for truth to prevail, they argued, was to vote for the Democrat.

"We may find out whether a 'post truth' candidate can be elected president," Washington Post "Plum Line" blogger Greg Sargent warned just before the election. "If there is one constant to this campaign, it's that Romney has startled many observers by operating from the basic premise that there is literally no set of boundaries he needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of his assertions."

One year later, as the mainstream press was filling up with blow-by-blow accounts of Obama-Care's brutally inept rollout and extravagantly broken promises, once-proud truth tellers like Sargent found themselves in the unintentionally comical position of downplaying the president's mendacity. "The White House could have been clearer in laying the groundwork for this political argument: It wasn't sufficient to say people who like their plans will be able to keep it, which is narrowly untrue," Sargent wrote. Then he pivoted to the real culprits, declaring that "the GOP outrage about Americans supposedly 'losing' coverage is largely just more of the same old misdirection. It's a subset of a larger Republican refusal to have an actual debate about the law's tradeoffs-one in which the law's benefits for millions of Americans are also reckoned with in a serious way."

Such euphemistic apologia and subject changing was common in October and November, as insurance cancellation letters flew into mailboxes by the hundreds of thousands. New York Times editorialist David Firestone, in a piece with the sneering headline "The Uproar Over Insurance 'Cancellation' Notices," referred to Obama's lie as "President Obama's unfortunate blanket statement." The paper's editorial board averred that Obama "clearly misspoke," then claimed the canceled policies were "not worth keeping." House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters: "I don't think the message was wrong. I think the message was accurate. It was not precise enough."

On October 30, the president himself attempted to shift the blame onto "bad-apple insurers," and he suggested that the cancellations of what his administration was calling "junk" plans were affecting "fewer than 5 percent of Americans." The day before, top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett tweeted, "FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."

As late as November 4, two days after The Wall Street Journal published a devastating account of how White House advisers had internally debated softening Obama's absolute claim about being able to keep your health plan and doctor, the president was trying to wriggle off the hook by rewriting his own rhetorical history: "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." Italics mine, to emphasize the lie about the lie.

By this time, even the president's defenders were categorizing Obama's falsehood as, at best, "a 'noble lie' in the Platonic sense of the term," as Salon's Brian Beutler put it on November 7. But even at that late date, "the real lying liars" (in Beutler's phrasing) were, of course, on the other side: "Noble lies have in many ways defined the debate over the Affordable Care Act, but the vast majority of them have been lies conservatives told in a failed effort to nix reform."

All that pettifoggery was rendered moot on the evening of November 7, when the president kinda-sorta apologized for misleading the country. NBC interviewer Chuck Todd asked Obama "Do you feel like you owe these folks an apology for misleading them?" The president, with much hemming and hawing within the ellipses, said this: "I regret very much that…we weren't as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place.…Even though it's a small percentage of folks who may be disadvantaged, you know, it means a lot to them. And it's scary to them. And I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me."

As reason's Peter Suderman pointed out at the time, the apology itself was not technically accurate. "People aren't 'finding themselves' in 'this situation'-the situation of having insurance plans they liked canceled-because of Obama's 'assurances,' " Suderman wrote at reason.com. "They are finding themselves in that situation because of legislation that his party crafted, rules his administration drafted, and a bill that he promoted vigorously and then signed into law. His assurances misled people about what would happen under that law, but did not cause the plans to be terminated."

The estimated scores of millions of eventual health-plan cancellations that Americans will soon face are not some weird unintended consequence of ObamaCare. They are fundamental to making the law work as written. The Affordable Care Act relies on previously uninsured young people to overpay for coverage they don't need, and for previously insured adults to pay for health contingencies they will never face, be it childbirth for men or pediatric dental care for grandparents. That is what is supposed to allow more people to be covered and to keep overall rates in check. Since making people's health insurance more expensive is not particularly popular, Obama lied about it, and not only when he claimed you could keep your plan and your doctor.

In fact, the president promised at least 15 times while running for president in 2008 that his health insurance reform would reduce premiums by an average of $2,500 per family. In May 2009, he said the law would "end up saving $2 trillion," leading to "lower premiums." The White House blog in November 2009 featured such headlines as "Objective Analysis Shows Reform will Help Small Businesses, Lower Premiums for American Families" and "CBO Confirms That Families Will Save Money Under Health Reform."

As Suderman wrote in June 2013, there was "no mistaking the message that the Obama White House was selling to anyone who would listen: that premiums would go down, that benefits would go up, and that if premiums did happen to go up, it would only be as a result of an individual choice to buy more robust coverage." What's more, "This is the debate that even those relatively few Americans who follow wonky policy pundits were hearing-not one that emphasized tradeoffs, but one that repeatedly emphasized that ObamaCare would have mostly positive impacts on premiums, and that any negative impacts would be modest."

For years, liberal commentators have accused conservatives of living in an intellectual "bubble" of their own creation, impervious to reality. But through official intent and intellectual laziness, Democrats have created a bubble of deception surrounding ObamaCare that will affect millions of Americans for years to come. A lie this ignoble should stain the credibility of everyone who perpetuated it.

repo4sale Loc: 89041

More Lies: Obama Lived With Illegal Immigrant Uncle in 1980s
Christine Rousselle | Dec 05, 2013
-----------------------------------------
Despite White House claims in early 2012 that President Obama had never met his illegal immigrant uncle Onyango "Omar" Obama, the president admitted today that he did indeed stay with him during a three-week period in law school.

Omar Obama first made news when he was charged with drunk driving in 2011, and was recently granted permission to remain and work in the United States. At his court hearing he claimed the president lived with him briefly in the 1980s, which contradicted earlier White House claims.

On Thursday, a White House official said the press office had not fully researched the relationship between the president and his uncle before telling the Globe that they had no record of the two meeting. This time, the press office asked the president directly, which they had not done in 2011.

“The president first met Omar Obama when he moved to Cambridge for law school,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “The president did stay with him for a brief period of time until his apartment was ready. After that, they saw each other once every few months, but after law school they fell out of touch. The president has not seen him in 20 years, has not spoken with him in 10.”

The White House said Obama’s immigration case was handled “without any interference from the president or the White House.”

Never mind the fact that it makes zero sense to not go to a direct source when announcing whether or not two people know each other, but this story just seems a little fishy. I cannot understand why someone would lie about knowing a family member. (I also do not understand why an illegal immigrant with a criminal history would be allowed to stay in the United States, but that's another topic for another article.)

This makes you wonder what other lies the president has told.

repo4sale Loc: 89041

Obamacare: Lies All the Way Down
By Jonah Goldberg - December 14, 2013
-----------------------------------------
"Obamacare was sold on a trinity of lies.”

That ornate phrase, more suitable for the Book of Revelations or perhaps the next installment of Game of Thrones, comes from my National Review colleague Rich Lowry. But I like it. Most people know the first deception in the triumvirate of deceit: “If you like your health insurance you can keep it, period.” The second leg in the tripod of deception was “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

But the third plank in the triad of disinformation hasn’t gotten much attention: Obamacare will save you, me, and the country a lot of money. This lie took several forms.

First, Obama promised on numerous occasions that the average family of four will save $2,500 a year in premiums. Where did that number come from? Three Harvard economists wrote a memo in 2007 in which they claimed that then-Senator Obama’s health-care plan would reduce national health-care spending by $200 billion. Then, according to the New York Times, the authors “divided [$200 billion] by the country’s population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500.”

In September, the Obama administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services used far more rigorous methods to predict that Obamacare would increase national health-care spending by $621 billion. Using Obama’s own math, that would mean — according to Chris Conover, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute and Duke University — each family of four in America will spend an additional $7,450 thanks to Obamacare.

Of course, that methodology is still bogus. But it’s probably closer to the truth.

The president and his allies also insisted that all of Obamacare’s “free” preventative care would save the country vast amounts of money. As Obama put it in 2012: “As part of the health-care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations, and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money — for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody.”

That’s not true either. First of all, you’d think people would understand that there is no such thing as “at no cost.” You are paying for “free” mammograms, blood tests, and the rest, even if you don’t see a line item for them on your bill. And even if you’re poor enough that you don’t even see a bill, that doesn’t mean no one’s paying. That’s why millions of Americans who’ve lost their health insurance thanks to Obamacare are discovering that the new plans it offers are either more expensive, have higher deductibles, or both.

Also, prevention doesn’t necessarily save money. I know that Benjamin Franklin said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (People always leave out the fact that he owned an insurance company that ran at a profit.) The idea that prevention saves money is one of these things that intuitively sounds like it has to be true. But think about it.

According to the National Cancer Institute, 12.4 percent of American women will get breast cancer at some point in their lives. So for every positive diagnosis there are seven negative diagnoses. Those tests cost a lot of money. Moreover, of the women who do get it, premature screenings won’t necessarily catch it. That in no way means that screenings don’t make sense. They do, particularly for women in high-risk groups. But testing everybody isn’t a great way to save money. As the Congressional Budget Office reported in August, “The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.”

When presented with these and other facts, Obamacare’s defenders note that the rate of increase in health-care costs has slowed in recent years. “I’m not going to walk away from something that has helped the cost of health care grow at its slowest rate in 50 years,” Obama said last month.

This spin doesn’t work either. The slowing of health-care costs began a decade ago, and even the administration’s own actuaries say the recent drop is mostly attributable to the lousy economy. But even that’s too generous to Obama. Costs haven’t dropped. The rate of increase in spending has slowed. We’re still on course to spend a record $2.9 trillion on health care in 2013.

Obamacare may have been sold on a trinity of lies, but it turns out it’s also lies all the way down.

repo4sale Loc: 89041

OBAMA LIES TO ISRAELIS ON IRAN NUKE DEAL
Falsely claims agreement nixes Tehran's uranium enrichment
------------------------------------------
JERUSALEM – In an address broadcast live to Israel Sunday, President Obama falsely claimed the West’s nuclear deal with Tehran takes Iran’s uranium enrichment down to zero from its current 20 percent.



Obama made the false claim twice even though the text of the deal caps Iran’s uranium enrichment at 5 percent, a figure that could constantly leave the country two months away from the technical ability to build a nuke.

Obama was hosted for a forty-minute question-and-answer session at the annual Saban Forum at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. The session was broadcast live on Israel’s Channel 2, the country’s largest television station.

Regarding the nuclear deal, Obama stated: “We have not only made sure that in Fordor and Natanz that they have to stop adding additional centrifuges, we’ve also said that they’ve got to roll back their 20 percent advanced enrichment. So we’re … ”

Host Chaim Saban interrupted and asked, “To how much?”

Saban was asking about the percentage Iran would be required to roll back its enrichment.

“Down to zero,” Obama stated. “So you remember when Prime Minister Netanyahu made his presentation before the United Nations last year?”

“The cartoon with the red line?” asked Saban.

Continued Obama: “The picture of a bomb – he was referring to 20 percent enrichment, which the concern was if you get too much of that, you now have sufficient capacity to go ahead and create a nuclear weapon. We’re taking that down to zero.”

In actuality, the six-month renewable interim deal requires Iran to cap its uranium enrichment at 5 percent. Iranian diplomats have repeatedly stated they will not give up the right to enrich uranium in any final deal.

Later on in his speech, Obama contradicted himself and conceded Iran would likely retain an enrichment capability in a final deal.

He said: “We can envision an end state that gives us an assurance that even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity.

“Theoretically they might still have some [breakout capacity]. But frankly, theoretically, they will always have some because, as I said, the technology here is available to any good physics student.”

In an e-mail to WND, Olli Heinonen, the former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector, explained how the 5 percent enrichment leaves Tehran perpetually just two months away from enriching enough uranium to assemble one nuclear weapon.

“Let us look at the current the facts on the ground. With Iran’s inventory of 20 percent enriched uranium, it would take about two weeks using 6000 IR-1 centrifuges, operating in tandem cascades, to produce enough weapons grade material for one nuclear device. If Iran uses three to five percent enriched uranium as feed material at all its currently installed 18,000 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, the same result would be achieved in two months.

“The current agreement retains Iran’s fleet of more than 18000 IR-1 centrifuges. Operational restrictions are placed that allow 10,000 centrifuges to continue to enrich at up to 5 percent at any given point of time. These measures, together with a cessation of 20 percent enriched uranium production and conversion of the 20 percent-level stockpiles to oxides, extend the current breakout times to about two months.”

Meanwhile, in the session Sunday, Obama claimed the deal only opens the Iranian economy to a maximum of $7 billion in sanctions relief.

Stated Obama: “What we’ve done is we’ve turned the spigot slightly and we’ve said, here’s maximum $7 billion out of the over $100 billion of revenue of theirs that is frozen as a consequence of our sanctions, to give us the time and the space to test whether they can move in a direction, a comprehensive, permanent agreement that would give us all assurances that they’re not producing nuclear weapons.”

However, WND reported under the interim deal Tehran’s economy could be flooded with untold billions in sanctions relief and other gains, far more than the widely reported amount of $6 to $7 billion.

A careful reading of the agreement, posted on the EU’s website, finds numerous open-ended statements about sanctions relief.

If Iran keeps its side of the bargain, the deal allows an increase in European Union “authorisation thresholds for transactions for non-sanctioned trade to an agreed amount.” No amount for the thresholds are provided in the text of the deal.

The agreement states the U.S. and EU will “enable the repatriation of an agreed amount of revenue held abroad.” No specific amount is delineated in the deal.

In one clause that could potentially free untold billions, the deal establishes a “financial channel to facilitate humanitarian trade for Iran’s domestic needs using Iranian oil revenues held abroad.” No cap is provided for the amount of revenue that could be made available.

An open-ended footnote states the “humanitarian” trade financial channel “would involve specified foreign banks and non-designated Iranian banks to be defined when establishing the channel.”

More sanctions relief spelled out in the text of the deal includes a Western agreement to:

Pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s crude oil sales, enabling Iran’s current customers to purchase their current average amounts of crude oil. For such oil sales, it suspends the EU and U.S. sanctions on associated insurance and transportation services.
Suspend U.S. and EU sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical exports, as well as sanctions on associated services, gold and precious metals.
Suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran’s auto industry, as well as sanctions on associated services.
License the supply and installation in Iran of spare parts for safety of flight for Iranian civil aviation and associated services.
License safety related inspections and repairs in Iran as well as associated services.
Not impose new nuclear-related U.N. Security Council sanctions.
Not impose new EU nuclear-related sanctions.
In the case of the U.S. administration, acting consistently with the respective roles of the president and the Congress, refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

repo4sale Loc: 89041

TOP 10 OBAMA LIES!
---------------------------------
President Obama is becoming a veritable Pinocchio by stretching the truth on a regular basis. Here are the Top 10 Obama Lies.

1. Americans want higher taxes: During the debate over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama said that 80% of Americans support including higher taxes as part of the deal. But a Rasmussen poll taken the same week showed that only 34% believe a tax hike should be included in a debt-ceiling agreement.

2. Mother denied health insurance: During his presidential campaign, Obama said that his mother died of cancer after being denied coverage for a preexisting condition. He used her image in a campaign ad, repeated the claim in debates, and used the same rhetoric as President when he tried to sell ObamaCare to the American people. But a new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott says that Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, had health insurance through her employer and was only denied disability insurance.

3. Tax restraint for middle and lower class: Obama pledged during his campaign and throughout his presidency not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. But ObamaCare’s individual mandate will hit many under the $250,000 mark. (Obama’s own Justice Department said the mandate was a tax, not a penalty, when it argued its constitutionality.) Not to mention a higher federal cigarette tax and countless other “fees” in the health care law that hit the middle and lower class.

4. Shovel-ready jobs: When Obama was selling his $787 billion stimulus package, he consistently bragged about how shovel-ready construction jobs would be funded across the nation. Even the President later admitted that was a lie, when he told the New York Times: “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

5. Keep your doctor: President Obama repeatedly pledged that under his health care measure, Americans would be able to keep their doctors. However, with rising costs, many employers will dump their health care plans and force workers into the state health care exchanges (unless you belong to one of the unions getting ObamaCare waivers.) A survey by McKinsey & Company found that more than 30% of companies will discontinue coverage for their workers.

6. No lobbyists: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “We have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. … I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won’t find a job in my White House.” At least a dozen former lobbyists got top jobs in his administration at the beginning of his presidency, according to Politico, and National Public Radio reported the Obama administration was granting waivers to lobbyists to circumvent the ban.

7. Foreign money in campaigns: During his 2010 State of the Union address, and again during the 2010 midterm elections, Obama railed against foreign money influencing U.S. elections. The only problem was that there was no evidence to support the charge or, as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in the State of the Union audience, silently mouthed, “Not true.”

8. Arizona immigration law: During the battle over Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama said: “Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.” Uh, actually, Mr. President, it couldn’t. The law would allow law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status only when there is suspicion of a crime being committed.

9. Transparency: Obama pledged that transparency would be a top priority, but his administration refused to grant one-third of the Freedom of Information Act requests, according to an Associated Press analysis. He also was dishonest about transparency when he said that health-care negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN and that he would wait five days to sign a bill so people would have a chance to read it online.

10. Constitutional oath: During his January 2009 inauguration, Barack Obama pledged to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” yet he has consistently ignored the 10th Amendment giving powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. Exhibit No. 1: ObamaCare.