Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 659)

France Attacks Why Belgium

FILE – In this Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2015, file photo, police guard a street in which special intervention forces searched a house in the Molenbeek neighborhood in Brussels. Molenbeek is separated from the Midi section of Brussels by part of a mosaic of jurisdictions of 19 municipalities and 6 policing zones, all for a population of 1 million, long hampering cooperation. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert, File)

Prosecutors in Belgium have located and identified an apartment where the mastermind behind the Paris jihadists attacks hid after November 13, and where the attackers may have made their explosives.

In the apartment, which according to the BBC is located in Brussels’ Schaerbeek district, police found traces of explosives and the fingerprint of Islamic terror fugitive Salah Abdeslam.

French and Belgium authorities said that Abdeslam returned to the apartment following the attacks, as he thought it to be the only safe place to hide. Investigators also believe that someone drove him there and dropped him off not far from the apartment just after the attacks. The apartment had also been rented under a false name. Prosecutors said that it would be difficult to determine the date of the fingerprint.

In a raid on the apartment on Dec. 10, police found explosive TATP (acetone peroxide) and handmade belts. Investigators believe the explosives were likely put into suicide belts in a hotel outside Paris before the Nov. 13 attacks, which claimed the lives of 130 people.

Prosecutors in Belgium have located and identified

Hillary-Clinton-Leon-Panetta

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laughs alongside former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prior to presenting her with the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service during a ceremony at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on February 14, 2013. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was called to testify behind closed doors on Friday by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the committee, told reporters that lawmakers have learned nothing new from the meetings this week.

Gen. David Petraeus, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified ahead of Panetta on Wednesday to discuss the circumstances surrounding the lack of military response to the attacks that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The committee probed Petraeus about the rescue assets available that night and the contents of the CIA instant messaging program called Sametime, which has never been reviewed by prior investigators, not excluding the Benghazi select committee.

Yet, Rep. Cummings and committee Democrats insist Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and House Republicans are wasting taxpayer money by prolonging the investigation in an effort to damage former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just in time for the presidential election. However, according to emails obtained by PPD and Judicial Watch, as well as sources close to the investigation, the evidence shows both Panetta and Clinton lied to the public and Congress.

Sources tell PPD that the evidence in total contradicts statements made by Panetta under oath before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013, as well as multiple statements on multiple occasions by Clinton.

An email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership shows the Pentagon immediately offered “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the initial wave of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. The email, which was sent to top Department of State officials at 7:19 p.m. ET, came only hours after the first wave of the attack had begun.

“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [reference to “Secretary” Clinton],” Bash wrote. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

That leaves plenty of time on the established timeline of attack to at least make the argument for assets preventing–or, at least blunting–the second wave on the CIA annex. The first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 pm local time–3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC. The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning–6 p.m. ET.

Unfortunately, the documents show Clinton never responded to the offer from the Pentagon, and four Americans tragically lost their lives that night. The timing and content of the email is significant because 1) it contradicts the story top Obama administration officials told in the wake of the attack and, 2) because of the congressional testimony by Gregory Hicks, then-Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and highest ranking State Department official on the ground at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

“If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,” Hicks told members of Congress. “They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Hicks’ assertion during his testimony before Congress was also backed up CIA-contracted operators that came forward in the years following the attack, all of which claimed they were given a “stand down” order during the early stages of the eight-hour siege.

It is undoubtedly the consensus that a show of force by the U.S. military during that time would have prevented casualties after the initial wave of the attack, which eventually claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Matt Wolking, spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said in December when approached with the emails obtained by PPD that lawmakers also obtained the email and would address it in the final report. Chairman Gowdy, a former prosecutor, no doubt called Panetta to testify behind closed doors after Gen. Petraeus and, before Bash, for a reason. Mr. Wolking’s comment also came before the committee announced the updated schedule of witness testimony, which also shows Bash is slated to testify on Wednesday, January 13.

Panetta, a longtime Clinton confident and ally, was the only cabinet official known to have personally met with the president the night of the attack. The mainstream media must be forced to cover the indisputable evidence. And, even when they do, there is certainly no assurance that they will cover the facts honestly. In fact, during her 11-hour testimony in October, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, hit Mrs. Clinton with the smoking gun email related to the fabricated YouTube video narrative.

Media headline: “Hillary Emerges Unscathed!”

Sure, that may sound true if you first, ignore the fact Mrs. Clinton said it was a YouTube video that caused the attack in Benghazi, not terrorism. Then, forget the story was changed to suggest it was a YouTube video that contributed to what might appear to be something that resembles terrorism.

Now, with the evidence out there for anyone to Google, the narrative has transformed yet again into an unfortunate act of terrorism that had nothing to do with a failure of leadership but everything to do with GOP-pushed spending cuts. According to a recent interview, Mrs. Clinton now says the families of the Benghazi victims are lying about her telling them a video was the catalyst for the attack.

PPD has already thoroughly exposed the YouTube video scandal in detail, but the greater scandal is lying about why the Obama administration abandoned four Americans serving their country to die. Immediately after the attack, both Panetta and Clinton maintained that there were no military assets that could have arrived at the mission in time to save American lives. Mr. Panetta repeated as much during a television interview Thursday night, while Mrs. Clinton insisted “responsible” investigations concluded this was true during the December interview with the Conway Daily Sun Editorial Board.

“The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.”

Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979. Sadly, Democrats, including one that referred to him as her friend, left him and three other Americans to their deaths and, now, they are all too happy to sweep them and the true causes they died for under the rug.

Why the House Select Committee on Benghazi

ObamaCare, Barack Obama's signature healthcare law overhaul, reflected in graphic image.

ObamaCare, Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law overhaul, represented in graphic image.

President Obama vetoed legislation passed by both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress that would repeal the most unpopular provisions of ObamaCare. The House by 240-181 approved the Senate amendment and passed the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act (H.R. 3762) this week, which also defunds Planned Parenthood.

While Congress does not appear to have the votes to override Obama’s veto, it marked both the fulfillment of a longstanding promise to voters and the beginning of an effort to build a consensus for a replacement bill. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he will work to disarm Democrats’ oft-repeated claims that they have no alternative.

“This budget reconciliation bill, which would reduce the federal deficit by a half trillion dollars, forces the president to confront the failures of ObamaCare head on,” Speaker Ryan added. “But most importantly, it clears the path to repealing this law with a Republican president in 2017 and replacing it with a truly patient-centered health care system. We will not back down from this fight to defend the sanctity of life and make quality health care coverage achievable for all Americans.”

Conservative critics have long cited the unpopularity of the president’s signature healthcare law and one of the most effective campaign messages for Republican candidates since 2010. According to the PPD aggregate average of ObamaCare approval rating polls, the American people are still deeply opposed to the healthcare overhaul. The spread in opposition to ObamaCare has consistently remained around 10 percentage points, where it roughly stands now.


FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 2
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H RES 579      YEA-AND-NAY      6-Jan-2016      3:30 PM
QUESTION:  On Ordering the Previous Question
BILL TITLE: Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3762) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 238 7
DEMOCRATIC 1 175 12
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 239 175   19

—- YEAS    239 —
 

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

—- NAYS    175 —
 

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutiérrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O’Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

—- NOT VOTING    19 —
 

Byrne
Cleaver
DeLauro
Hinojosa
Huffman
Issa
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kind
King (IA)
Miller (MI)
Nugent
Payne
Rigell
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Takai
Titus
Webster (FL)

President Obama vetoed legislation passed by both

 Even With Employment Revised Higher, Wages, Participation and Employment Ratio Lag Behind

jobs-report-getty

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – MAY 30: A job seeker holds a pamphlet during a job and career fair at City College of San Francisco southeast campus on May 30, 2013 in San Francisco, California. Hundreds of job seekers attended a career fair hosted by the San Francisco Southeast Community Facility Commission. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The Labor Department’s highly-anticipated December jobs report blew past economists’ expectation, as the U.S. economy added 292,000 jobs rather than 200,000. The unemployment rate held steady at 5% for the month, as the median forecast expected.

The U.S. labor force participation rate ticked up to 62.6% in December from the near 40-year low of 62.5% the month prior. This is particularly noteworthy considering the weak labor force and flat or falling trends have artificially skewed the headline unemployment number. Still, the less-cited but more important employment-population ratio stood unchanged at just 59.5%, and the smallest number of men ever recorded are currently participating in the labor force.

“Incorporating revisions for October and November, which increased nonfarm payroll employment by 50,000, monthly job gains have averaged 284,000 over the past 3 months,” said Erica L. Groshen, Commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which conducts the survey for the Labor Department. “In 2015, job growth averaged 221,000 per month, compared with an average of 260,000 per month in 2014.”

The unusually warm weather and holiday season definitely contributed to the better-than-expected December jobs report. For example, construction added a whopping 45,000 jobs. Job increases occurred among specialty trade contractors (+29,000) and in construction of buildings (+10,000). Over the year, construction added 263,000 jobs, compared with a gain of 338,000 jobs in 2014.

However, the December jobs report was disappointing on the wages front, which remained essentially unchanged at $25.34 an hour. The Wages were sadly stagnant throughout much of 2015 and in prior years, which has contributed to stubbornly low inflation. Despite strong job creation and a rapidly falling unemployment rate, wages haven’t risen accordingly largely because the lower-paying service sector has carried the weaker, higher-paying manufacturing and energy sectors.

Employment in mining continued to decline in December (-8,000) amid overly burdensome government regulations. After adding just 41,000 jobs throughout the entire 2014 year, mining went on to lose 129,000 jobs in 2015, with most of the loss in support activities for mining. Manufacturing employment changed little in December, though its nondurable goods component added 14,000 jobs. In 2015, manufacturing employment was little changed (+30,000), following strong growth in 2014 (+215,000).

The manufacturing sector, which accounts for roughly 12% of the nation’s economic output but disproportionately offers higher-wage employment, has essentially been on life support for the majority of the previous year. The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Report On Business released this week showed the sector opened the year limping along, falling deeper into contraction. The latest durables goods orders survey released prior to the report was flat, though military spending accounted for all of the month’s gain and headline figure.

Nevertheless, despite showing a continuation and expansion of the part-time economy, the December jobs report is welcomed news after U.S. equity markets saw their worst start to a year ever recorded in history. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDEXDJX:.DJI) closed out it’s worst 4-day trading session in history on Thursday amid back-to-back selloffs in China’s Shanghai Composite (INDEXSTOXX:SX5E) index. China markets plummeted 7.04% in the previous day of trading, resulting in the complete halting of all trading in the Asian tiger markets.

The Labor Department's highly-anticipated December jobs report

Donald Trump Holds Rally in Vermont City Where Socialist Bernie Sanders Served as Mayor

Donald-Trump-VT-Rally-AP

Donald Trump talks with supporters and signs autographs during a campaign stop at the Flynn Center of the Performing Arts in Burlington, Vt., Thursday, Jan. 7, 2016. (Photo: AP)

Burlington, Vermont. — Republican frontrunner Donald Trump on Thursday night held a rally in the very city that elected a socialist mayor named Bernie Sanders during the Cold War (1981). The campaign was forced to turn away thousands out of the 20,000 or so they claimed showed up to the event, as the venue capacity only held about 10% of that number.

PPD has not yet independently confirmed the number, but city officials did say the event was far beyond what the campaign suggested. At one point, Sanders’ supporters who managed to get in were escorted out while Trump joked about not giving them their coats back.

“We all like Bernie. Do we like Bernie?” Trump said of the hometown senator. “Well if you want to pay a 90% tax. I would love to run against Bernie. That would be a dream come true.”

To be sure, the reaction from the uber-liberal residents in Burlington was mixed, despite the large crowd. Events that flowered from the rally included a “Love Trumps Hate” candlelight vigil along the road from the airport, a “Get Out Trump March” in the streets, a “silent presence” across the street, and a “Rally for Love and Unity” at a popular farmer’s market.

The deli next door to Trump’s rally advertised a special sandwich they called “The Donald,” which bologna on white bread slathered with bacon slices, or B.S.

But The Donald may not just have visited the state for his ego or to stick it to Bernie, a name he mentioned more than a dozen times. Prior to the rally, Trump began airing ads on the Burlington-based television station WCAX, which is a media market that extends into much of northern New Hampshire. When asked about this, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told Politico that Trump was running “a different type of campaign.”

Indeed, Trump clearly understands the Republican primary process more than the Establishment ever gave him credit for since he announced over the summer. Party elites have long-relied upon more moderate states to skew the playing field against conservative candidates, according to the People’s Pundit.

Mr. Trump is using the rules of their own rigged game against the party elites,” says PPD’s senior political analyst Rich Baris. “The more moderate Establishment has always skewed the delegate count and calendar to work against insurgents and conservatives. By Trump dominating New England and similiar primary electorates, he’s effectively shut out the usual suspects, mainly Gov. Jeb Bush.”

Trump also held a large rally on Monday in Lowell, Massachusetts, a city in Middlesex County and fourth largest in the state. But, in many ways, it more closely resembles urban Granite State transplants than more liberal voters in the city of Boston. And, while the frontrunner enjoys a loyal Republican vote in most regions of the country, support for him in Vermont is relatively weak.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump on Thursday night

Valerie-Jarrett-Clinton-Global-Initiative

Senior White House advisor Valerie Jarrett speaks during the annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) September 22, 2010 in New York City. (Photo: AP)

Valerie Jarrett, who’s seemed to have jumped into the role of Lie Czar for this week’s White House public relations sell–supplanting perhaps Susan Rice, of “blame Benghazi on a video fame”–donned her anti-truth shield and took to national TV to showcase her skills and tell the watching public: My boss, President Obama, isn’t really bypassing Congress by issuing executive orders for gun control.

That little thing called executive order? Don’t mind that. Them’s just words.

“Let’s be specific,” she said, in a broadcast interview in the lead-up to Obama’s issuance of his not-bypassing-Congress-but-still-coming-unilaterally order. “The president is not circumventing Congress.”

And with that, the straight-faced Jarrett skewered through the definition of executive order, itself–as if the American public were that stupid.

Why is this administration so bent on bending the truth?

Scratch that. That answer’s obvious – to grab power and control at all costs. But understanding the motive doesn’t make it any less maddening. Perhaps the better question is: Why are there so many in this White House with such careless regard for the truth?

Wordplay is an art with these guys, so much so that entire websites have been to keep track of Team Obama’s spin. Remember White House press secretary Jay Carney? Well, he’s got his own “9 Top Lies” website. Another of the old gang, Stephanie Cutter, former campaign spin-meister for then-candidate Obama, even sparked her own hashtag — #FireLiarStef. What a proud moment for the elder Mrs. Cutter that must have been.

Obama alone has several websites dedicated to tracking his lies, most notably by the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, a site that can hardly be pointed to as right-wing propaganda but that nonetheless found double-digit cause to ding the president over the years (don’t forget to scroll to the next pages at the bottom of the link).

And we’re still trying to sift through the lies and deceptions and cover-ups and so forth of Obama’s first administration. Think Hillary Clinton and her whole “what difference at this point does [the truth] make” moment. Think again, the previously mentioned former national security adviser Susan’s Rice sad and despicable parrot squawks of You Tube videos sparking terrorism, followed by her equally sad and despicable characterization of U.S. Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl as “honorable.”

It’s been a busy couple of administrations. Unfortunately, it shows no signs of letting up. Obama isn’t going to grow a conscience any time soon. His hand-picks aren’t going to fly the proverbial straight arrows. His White House assemblage isn’t going to suddenly right its tipped moral compass. And most specifically, Jarrett isn’t going to admit her shamelessly presented shameful spin on words is all fallacy, aimed at confounding an already confounded public.

More of the same – that’s all we can expect from this president and this White House these next 12 months.

So what’s a fed-up patriot to do? Take heart. Fisher Ames, a Founding Father with considerable oratory skills, is said to have remarked: “Our liberty depends on our education, our laws and our habits … it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.”

And with that in mind: The election’s coming.

The president’s leaving, and with him, his team of skilled skewers of truth. It’s not that the incoming commander-in-chief, either Democrat or Republican, will be perfect followers of the “I will not tell a lie” way of thinking. But chances are, the voters are so fed up with the easy lying this administration does, the next White House chief to be elected won’t be half as bad – meaning, not Hillary – and the change on Capitol Hill won’t be one of just mouths, rhetoric and politicking, but also heart, morals and religion.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Valerie Jarrett, who’s seemed to have jumped

obama guns executive order gun control

President Barack Obama, joined by gun violence victims, speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016, about steps his administration is taking to reduce gun violence. Also on stage are stakeholders, and individuals whose lives have been impacted by the gun violence. (Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

I’ve long marveled at President Obama’s calls for bipartisanship right before viciously tearing into Republicans. It’s creepy, because he is either too self-absorbed to know he’s doing it or arrogant enough to assume we won’t see through it.

I’m referring not to the routine partisan rancor between politicians in the course of debating an issue but to those occasions when there is no time between Obama’s demands for cooperation and his tongue-lashing of Republicans — when he waxes eloquent about getting along and then immediately pummels his opponents. It’s so strikingly inconsistent that I am surprised even conservative commentators don’t make more of this.

In speaking to congressional Republicans on Obamacare, for example, Obama patronizingly told them that health care is such an important issue that they should put partisanship aside and work together to solve the problem. Then he proceeded to define bipartisanship and cooperation as, in effect, agreeing with his proposals because they were simply “common-sense” ideas. Anyone who didn’t agree with him was, by definition, at odds with common sense, and a politician wouldn’t do that unless motivated by partisanship. Obama then berated Republicans for not having jumped on board already.

We’ve all met people who actually believe that their ideas are so self-evidently superior that anyone who disagrees is automatically unreasonable, but it has been disturbing to witness a president with this unrealistic and delusional attitude.

This attitude seems to flow from extreme liberalism. Many liberals, especially media and academic elites, believe there is only one reasonable position on certain issues, from politics to culture to religion to, yes, even science. They think that their views are eminently sound and that contrary opinions are unreasonable, often evil and sometimes not worthy of constitutional protection.

That’s why the liberal media don’t consider themselves biased; in their minds, they are just promoting the only sensible position. The dissenting viewpoint doesn’t need to be represented, because it is too toxic to warrant a voice, much less a balanced treatment.

This explains not only their shameless bias in news selection, reporting and commentating but also their opposition to the presentation of alternative views in schools on aspects of Darwinism or man-made global warming. They shame the “deniers” who haven’t hopped on their cuckoo “consensus” train.

But Obama is even worse than your garden-variety liberal who has difficulty acknowledging or respecting dissenting views, as he proved again in his gun control speech Tuesday.

He said the gun control issue “has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates — despite the fact that there’s a general consensus in America about what needs to be done.” Polarized and partisan, yes, but a consensus? Please.

He added: “I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. … But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it.”
Why is it urgent when his liberal friends agree that even draconian liberal gun proposals, let alone these regulatory Band-Aids he is unilaterally imposing, wouldn’t have prevented the types of mass shootings we’ve had in this country?

Perhaps we should feel a sense of urgency about the shootings (as opposed to gun control), but if Obama had a sense of urgency about the shootings, he would attempt to address the problem rather than exploit it to push gun control. He would address the gang-related black-on-black shootings in Chicago.

What about his claim that we can disagree without impugning one another’s motives or being disagreeable?

Well, he betrayed his own advice just a few sentences later — and again and again. He said: “Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns.”

Then he cited a “compromise” proposal offered by a Democrat and a Republican senator. “Pretty common-sense stuff. Ninety percent of Americans supported that idea. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for that idea. But it failed because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted against that idea.”
No partisan slurs or shaming there, no sirree.

More: “So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. … And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts. Put your money where your mouth is. … The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. … We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do.”

There you have it. If you agree with Obama, you have common sense and are reasonable. If you disagree, you are unreasonable, partisan or a corrupt pawn of moneyed interests. Yet he’s not insulting you. He’s not talking past you. He’s not being divisive or partisan.

It’s surreal.

[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

I've long marveled at Mr. Obama's calls

Obama-NRA

File Photo: President Barack Obama, left, and the NRA cap logo. (Photos: AP/Gallup)

Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, appeared on “The Kelly File” to respond to the president’s criticism of the gun rights advocacy group at an event hosted by CNN Thursday night. While the president and the network called the forum a “town hall,” it was in fact held in Washington D.C.

He said that while Obama was billing his executive order on gun control as a measure to keep Americans safe, not only is that not “intellectually” honest but it’s a distraction from the fact his policies failed to keep the American people safe.

“This is an attempt to distract the American people away from his failed policies,” Cox said. “So, did we participate? We didn’t. We were offered one pre-screened question. Megyn I know that you don’t send your questions over to the White House so I’d rather have a discussion with you that’s intellectually honest than sit and get an opportunity to ask one pre-screened question.”

Cox said that it would be pointless to meet with the president–“who doesn’t have a basic understanding of or respect the Second Amendment”–because he doesn’t support the individual right to bear arms. President Obama also asserted that the NRA profits off of gun deaths because each time mass shootings occur gun sales spike in anticipation of gun control pushes from the left.

“The president doesn’t have a monopoly on compassion,” said Cox, who is also the executive director. “The president doesn’t get to lecture us on loving our kids. This presidency has done nothing to keep us safe.”

“This president has lost all credibility,” he added.

Unsurprisingly, to add to the Orwellian alliance between the leftwing news outlet and the president, CNN released a poll tonight that found Americans “generally agree” with the president’s action. Of course, as PPD has repeated explained over-and-over, support for the NRA has held firm and support for the Second Amendment has steadily risen in spite of the incessant attacks by the advocates of the latter’s repeal.

Gallup-NRA-Approval-Rating

“Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has blamed the NRA for stifling the movement toward gun control. More broadly, some commentators in the news media and on social media have criticized the NRA for its theory that ‘a good guy with a gun’ may stop ‘a bad guy with a gun’ in mass shootings,” noted Art Swift at Gallup. “Yet in a Gallup poll from Oct. 7-11, a solid majority of Americans (58%) say they have an overall favorable impression of the NRA. This includes the highest recording of ‘very favorable’ opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989.”

Indeed, as we showed following the shooting of two journalists on television in Virginia, support for gun control when polled honestly isn’t at all impacted by mass shootings or the pile on that is sure to follow. While the NRA’s image has held firm, on the flip side, according to the PPD aggregate average just 42% currently say the same of Obama.

Further, The New York Times just released polling data showing that a majority of Americans are even against banning so-called assault weapons. Look at the bottom line and see how the numbers have dramatically moved in the right direction.

These results are especially remarkable because many non-gun owners probably think “assault weapon” refers to a machine gun. Meanwhile, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, a contributor to CNN, said that he did not appreciate the president’s tone.

“It is not a conspiracy to be concerned about where he’s going,” Hewitt said, calling the remarks that “denigrate” Americans “deeply disappointing.”

Chris Cox, spokesman for the NRA, responded

Amid Back-to-Back China Shutdown Sell-Offs, Major Markets Correct

New-York-Stock-Exchanges-Equities-Markets-Reuters

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. equity markets ended trading Thursday down sharply amid fears over a back-to-back shutdown selloff rout in China, where obscure data show a slowdown. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDEXDJX:.DJI) tumbled 2.32% to 16513. The S&P 500 (INDEXSP:.INX) dropped 47 points, or 2.37% to 1943, while the Nasdaq Composite (INDEXNASDAQ) shed 145 points, tanking 3.03% to 4689.

The last four days have been the worst the Dow Jones Industrial Average has seen in its history. Ironically, Walmart (NYSE:WMT), which lost roughly 25% of its value in 2015, was the only top 20 company on the index in the green by 2.3%, or 1.46 points.

U.S. crude tanked by $32.10 a barrel, which is its lowest level in more than 12 years. Prices actually recovered by mid-morning before they again fell back into negative territory. West Texas Intermediate crude lost 2.06%, falling to $33.27 a barrel, while Brent Crude, the international benchmark, fell 1.40% to $33.75 a barrel.

With commodities posting mixed results, investors traders flocked to safe-haven assets. As a result, Gold prices rose 1.48% to $1,108, the highest level in two months. Gold has now been up for the fifth-straight session. As with commodities, metals were mixed as silver was up 2.57% to $14.08 an ounce, while the China-intertwined and sensitive copper fell 3.16% to $2.02 a pound.

China Leads Near Global Market Collapse

A trader looks at the losses with the Shanghai Composite index, the China stock market. (Photo: Reuters)

A trader looks at the losses with the Shanghai Composite index, the China stock market. (Photo: Reuters)

For the second time this week, Chinese equity markets tripped their newly-installed “circuit breaker,” a mechanism used to prevent panic selling, just 30 minutes into the start of trade. Regulators rethought the move hours after trading was cut off, deciding to suspend the circuit breaker and not impliment the news system in the upcoming session. However, it has already added to volatility so far this year.

Andy Kapyrin, Regent Atlantic’s director of research, said the new decision should help calm things down a bit in global markets.

“It will remove the incentive to rush for the door on a down day,” he said. “China created these circuit breakers last year, but the problem is they made them too tight. In the U.S. we only halt trading when stocks fall 20%. In China, they set it at 7%. Having a circuit breaker that’s too tight might make a crash more likely because it could make everyone run to an exit, but the door is only so big.”

Meanwhile, China is trying to correct currency devaluations and an economic slowdown, the depth of which is not well-known. The renminbi, or yuan, hit a five-month low on Thursday stirring up previous fears from last year from the nation devaluing its currency not once but twice. Without a change, the once Asian tiger neighbors could find incentive to do the same, which could completely destabilize emerging and developing markets.

“Despite gradually gaining access to the IMF’s SDR basket, it is clear that Chinese markets are in no state to be called developed, with inexperienced regulatory bodies overseeing unsophisticated investors who seem to be in panic mode,” IG market analyst Joshua Mahony said in a statement.

China’s Shanghai Composite (INDEXSTOXX:SX5E) index plummeted 7.04%; Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell 3.09%; and Japan’s Nikkei bled 2.09%.

“No one knows where this rout will stop and as of yet, Chinese regulators have yet to show they can instill confidence in any other way than to install draconian measures that limit the function of free markets,” Mahony added.

In Europe, the Euro Stoxx 50, which tracks large-cap companies in the eurozone, lost 2.30%. Germany’s Dax fell by 2.29% and the French CAC 40 declined by 1.72%. The United Kingdom’s FTSE 100 lost 1.96%.

U.S. equity markets ended trading Thursday down

[brid video=”24236″ player=”2077″ title=”Donald Trump Jr My Dad’s Sick of Watching Incompetent Politicians Throw America’s Greatness Away”]

Donald Trump Jr., the son of billionaire real estate mogul and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, said his father was sick of watching incompetent politicians throw away America’s greatness. He said his father is just like an average blue collar guy that is saying things that need to be said even if they are politically incorrect.

Donald Trump Jr., the son of Republican

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial