Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 676)
Economy

Jobless Claims Remain Below 300K, Prior Week Unrevised

jobs-employment-line-reuters

Unemployed Americans wait in line for to fill out applications for jobless benefits. (Photo: Reuters)

The Labor Department’s firing rate gauge show the number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits rose far more than expected last week. Weekly jobless claims rose to 282,000 from an unrevised 269,000 the week prior, though economists’ expected claims to hold steady at 269,000. Further, though claims remained below 300,000, which is typical a sign of a healthy labor market, there are other factors to consider.

The 4-week moving average–widely to be a better gauge as it irons-out week-to-week volatility–was 2,183,000, an increase of 16,500 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 2,166,500.

While the total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending November 21 was 1,934,596, a decrease of 124,632 from the previous week, it would be irresponsible not to attribute a large part of that to long-term unemployment. There were 2,153,656 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2014, but as long-term unemployed persons increase in the labor market so does the pool eligible to file.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending November 21 were in Alaska (4.0), Puerto Rico (3.0), New Jersey (2.4), Pennsylvania (2.2), Montana (2.1), Nevada (2.1), West Virginia (2.1), Connecticut (2.0), the Virgin Islands (2.0), Massachusetts (1.9), and Wyoming (1.9). The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending November 28 were in Wisconsin (+4,677), Ohio (+2,212), Kentucky (+1,953), Kansas (+638), and Arkansas (+612), while the largest decreases were in California (-20,308), Texas (-7,225), New York (-3,042), Florida (-2,898), and Oregon (-2,432).

The Labor Department's firing rate gauge show

Opinion

Associating With the Sympathizers of Radical Islamists is Not Treason?

Obama-Muslim-Brotherhood-Hamas

The federal law on treason–18 U.S. Code § 2381–is very simple.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

With the clear and rational legal definition of treason being: a) adhering to the enemy and/or, b) giving them aide and comfort, it is not difficult to ascertain whether a person is guilty of this charge.

BACKGROUND

Persons who work in the field of counter-terrorism are aware of groups such as Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). In addition, part of their job is to be watchful for Hamas sympathizers here in the United States. In 2007 and 2008, the largest trial on terror financing in American history took place and centered on the Holy Land Foundation Relief and Development, which had sent Hamas $12 million over its existence.

The HLF’s officers were jailed for money laundering and rendering material assistance to a terrorist entity before the Obama administration under Attorney General Eric Holder decided to abandon the prosecution without explanation. The Hamas Charter states it is a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Osama bin Laden was also a member until he left this earth.

TODAY

Any president who knowingly appoints persons who have had relations with Hamas, Al Qaeda, or affiliated groups to high positions impacting national security would then be guilty of treason. Of course, the key here is the word “knowingly.”

Now, there are safe guards in place to prevent such breeches of national security, including the Senate confirmation process. However, when a president skips the process of Senate confirmation for his or her appointees to place an enemy of the U.S.A. in a position of national security, their act of treason puts the entire U.S.A. at risk.

Robert Malley was appointed to be the President’s Czar in the fight against ISIS on December 1, 2015. Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate in 2008, fired Robert Malley when it was exposed on Nov. 11, 2008 he met and had regular contact with Hamas. This means the Barack Obama was aware of the connection Robert Malley had to Hamas, an organization designation by the federal government to be a terrorist organization.

Was Robert Malley confirmed by the U.S. Senate? No. He’s a Czar.

Robert Malley has a long history with and deep ties to questionable characters in the not-so moderate Muslim community and possibly the Muslim Brotherhood. His father, Simon Malley, whom NBC described as “a well-known journalist born in Egypt who had ties to the Egyptian government,” is known for his anti-colonialist views and sympathy for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Malley’s family had close ties to Yasser Arafat, founder of the PLO.

Malley’s pro-Islamist views first became public in 1996 when he wrote, The Call from Algeria: Third Worldism, Revolution, and the Turn to Islam. Then, his views again became the center of scrutiny in 2001 when the major media outlet exposed his favoritism towards Yasser Arafat and the PLO for insisting Israel was at least partly to blame for the failed 2000 Camp David Accord. His views were so controversial even the left-leaning press covered the events were not buying it, exposing his bias on a national and international level.

Fast forward to February 18, 2014 and now-President Barack Obama appoints Malley to the position of a Senior Consultant on the Persian Gulf with the National Security Council. This is important to note, as Malley was the official responsible for Obama’s policy which enabled the Islamic State to be created from ISIS, which ceased to exist in June of 2014 after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared the Islamic State caliphate.

ISIS, a name along with ISIL are promoted only in the media and the White House, does not exist today, only the Islamic State. There is an important distinction and not to draw one is to misinform and misdirect the public into thinking ISIS is not Islamic.

Did Malley receive anything remotely resembling a demotion for this? No. In fact, now one year later he received a promotion to “Senior Advisor [Czar] to the President for the Counter-ISIL Campaign in Iraq and Syria.”

Is it treasonous to place a man with known connections and affinity to a FTO to positions of national security? Is it treasonous to promote him to a position which requires no Senate confirmation, particularly if his policy created such calamity? Will the House impeach the president for the crime of treason on this issue? Sadly, no. There is not one real man in the House of Representatives who is willing to stand up and start the process.

What does this mean? Malley will serve as Czar in the half-hearted fight against ISIS until Obama is either removed or term-limited out of office. We can expect the Islamic State to grow exponentially under Malley.

[mybooktable book=”civilization-jihad-and-the-myth-of-moderate-islam” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

If federal law defines treason as giving

Opinion

Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-Getty

Donald Trump visits Turnberry Golf Club, after its $10 Million refurbishment, June 8, 2015, in Turnberry, Scotland. | Hillary Clinton speaks at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) 32nd Annual Conference at the in Las Vegas, June 18, 2015. (PHOTO: GETTY)

They support activist government. They’re not socially conservative. They resent big money in politics. And if you administered a truth serum, they would probably say nice things about ObamaCare.

These are blue-collar supporters of Donald Trump. Democrats would do well to ask themselves, “Why aren’t some of them ours?”

I say “some” because a good chunk of Trump’s fans consider the combo platter of liberal social policies incomplete without a side dish of racist ranting. Others are simply so hungry for tough talk that they’ll avert their eyes from the nastiness on the plate.

Hillary Clinton talks tough, too, minus the detritus of Trump’s recycled fascism. Those who revere Trump for his theatricality will probably stay with Trump. But it shouldn’t be impossible for Clinton to pick off some supporters of the man who’s on record praising both her and single-payer health care.

Democrats routinely hold up polls showing that the American public favors their agenda. Yet time and again, politicians opposed to what the voters want win the elections. Here’s Trump appropriating some of their agenda while tacking on populist lunacy — and look how well he’s doing.

Here’s an explanation: People badly want respect, and liberal “leaders” tend not to be good at making ordinary folks feel respected — or even noticed. They come to the debate armed with logic, facts and historical analogies. But Republicans go for the gut. To do that, one has to understand what’s in the gut. Trump the salesman has an excellent endoscope.

When Democrats find a candidate who can connect emotionally, then bingo. That was Bill Clinton’s magic potion. Clinton was a magnet for controversy — political and personal — yet he left office with higher approval ratings than did Ronald Reagan.

Many liberals err in attributing too much of President Obama’s alleged low likability among working-class whites to racism. That’s too simple. How to account for Ben Carson’s strong support among many of these same groups of voters?

Obama is an educated intellectual, prone to cold reasoning and recognition of facts. I happen to like him for that, but that’s me. The political reality is that many voters want to imagine the president as their pal.

A rancher from central Nebraska once complained to me that Obama is an elitist who thinks he’s better than everyone else. The rancher was a savvy, well-informed guy. I asked him why he cared that Obama has a high self-opinion. An answer was not forthcoming.

Does a black elitist intellectual seem more grating to some white guys than a white elitist intellectual? Perhaps, but raw racism was not powering the rancher’s feelings.

This time around, Republican establishment candidates seem to have lost the playbook. They’ve been showering almost all their love and attention on the big-money people. That’s an especially bad move at a time when many blue-collar Republicans feel economically beaten up by these same donors. The party leaders seem to assume that working-class voters, however angry with them, will fall into line after watching their 4,603rd campaign ad.

Dear liberal politicians, think tankers and media personalities: You need to rewire your analytical brains for chats with the heart. You need to say “howdy, neighbor” more than you do and to openly express your love of country. And do trade in your “critiques” for sentences starting with “I feel that…”

When Bill Clinton said “I feel your pain,” he meant it — or at least convinced the public that he meant it. It would be hard to match the master for such skill, but Hillary Clinton should have excellent coaching. If she does that, many Trump supporters could be within her reach.

These are blue-collar supporters of Donald Trump.

Opinion

Christie-vs-Paul-debate

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, left, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, right, clash over privacy vs. security during the first prime-time Republican debate at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio on August 6, 2015. (Photo: FOX News)

If you were looking for a needle in a haystack, simple logic would tell you that the smaller the haystack the likelier you are to find the needle. Except for the government.

Since Edward Snowden revealed the federal government’s unlawful and unconstitutional use of federal statutes to justify spying on all in America all the time, including the members of Congress who unwittingly wrote and passed the statutes, I have been arguing that the Fourth Amendment prohibits all domestic spying, except that which has been authorized by a search warrant issued by a judge. The same amendment also requires that warrants be issued only based on a serious level of individualized suspicion backed up by evidence — called probable cause — and the warrants must specifically identify the place and person to be spied upon.

Because these requirements are in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, Congress and the president and the courts are bound by them. There is no emergency or public safety or wartime exception to them. These requirements cannot be changed by legislation; only a constitutional amendment, ratified by the legislatures of 37 states, can do so.

All of this is what lawyers and judges call black letter law — meaning it is well-understood, has not been seriously challenged and is nearly universally accepted. Except by the government.

The government — which thinks it can right any wrong, tax any event, regulate any behavior and interfere with any right — also thinks it can keep us safe from the terrorists among us by cutting constitutional corners, which it has done many times since 9/11. Among the constitutional corners it has cut is unleashing its 60,000 domestic spies upon us with orders to disregard the constitutional requirements for spying on Americans and gather all the data about us that they can by listening to phone calls and reading emails, as well as gathering the banking information, credit card information, utility bills, postal mail and medical records of everyone in America, without regard to individualized suspicion.

The government’s behavior is premised upon the false belief that it can morally and constitutionally interfere with our natural right to privacy without due process and upon the absurd belief that surrendering personal liberty somehow keeps us safe.

As we know from the tragedy last week in San Bernardino, California, the government’s strategy and practices failed to keep us safe. The governmental failure at San Bernardino was the confluence of a state government with antipathy and animosity toward the natural right of self-defense and a federal government attempting to devour far more data than it can handle.

The San Bernardino killings — like those in Newtown, Connecticut; at Virginia Tech; in Roseburg, Oregon; and in Paris — occurred on or near government property where lawful guns were banned. These no-gun zones are the most dangerous places on the planet when a person armed to the teeth and determined to kill enters upon them.

In the no-gun zone in San Bernardino where the killings occurred, even off-duty or retired law enforcement personnel, trained and continually qualified in the use of firearms, and private people lawfully authorized to carry handguns are required to check their guns at the door.

Can the civilian use of guns keep us safe? Of course it can. The police simply cannot be everywhere. Anything that diminishes the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel environment of no-gun zones is an improvement over the carnage we have witnessed in them. Think about it. In every mass killing — every one of them — when someone with a gun arrives determined to stop the killing, it stops; the killer flees or is disabled or is killed or dies by suicide.

No-gun zones are not only unconstitutional legislative limitations on the natural right of people to use modern-day means for self-defense but also an invitation to disaster. And they are established by local municipalities with the consent of state governments.

The federal failure is born of an antipathy to constitutional norms and a reluctance to engage in meaningful human intelligence on the ground. Instead of gathering all they can about everyone, the feds should concentrate on those about whom there is some reasonable belief to warrant some investigation. The feds should know the neighborhoods where the suspicious live and work as well as they know their own computer screens.

Even the National Security Agency itself has admitted to data overload. In 2013, the director of the NSA at the time, Gen. Keith Alexander, was asked how many plots his spies had unearthed in their then-seven years of spying on everyone in the U.S., and he replied under oath, “About 54.” Then he corrected himself and amended his answer to one or two. When asked to identify them, he declined.

Why weren’t a recently married couple with Middle Eastern backgrounds — one of whom had been born here, the other of whom had immigrated here and achieved permanent legal residence only through marriage, both of whom recently had been stockpiling huge amounts of military-style weaponry and ammunition, both of whom had just received more than half their combined annual income in a single wire transfer to their joint bank account, both of whom had been practicing the use of their hardware at a gun range, one of whom had been known to hate Jewish people and had suddenly left his local mosque — generally known to the all-seeing and all-hearing NSA?

Because the NSA has abandoned traditional techniques of on-the-ground, in-your-face human intelligence in favor of sitting in front of computer screens. And that has produced a haystack of data so gigantic in size that by the time the needle of terror plotting has been found, it is often too late.

If you were looking for a needle

Politics

Rob-Maness-LA-Senate-Race

Retired Air Force Colonel Rob Maness, a conservative favorite, campaigns for now-Sen. Bill Cassidy on Nov. 10, 2014.

Madisonville, LA: Retired Air Force Colonel Rob Maness announced on Wednesday that he is exploring a race for the open Louisiana Senate seat in 2016. Maness, who was the conservative favorite in the three-way “jungle primary” in 2014, would run to fill the seat vacated by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who lost the gubernatorial election last month to Democrat John Bel Edwards.

“It is clear to me that Louisiana needs a constitutional conservative and fighter in the United States Senate. I have directed my team to establish an exploratory committee for the 2016 election cycle,” Maness said in an email to People’s Pundit Daily. “Over the coming weeks, I look forward to visiting with citizens across our state and having a conversation about our Congress, our country, and our future.”

Maness garnered a significant 14% of the vote in 2014, enough to force a runoff before throwing his support behind now-Sen. Bill Cassidy, a former physician and Establishment pick. With Maness on board, Cassidy easily defeated incumbent Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu in the deeply red Pelican State.

However, circumstances and the political environment may prove Maness to be a far better fit this election cycle, particularly if voters’ concerns continue to be dominated by terrorism. With the rise of the threat from Islamic terrorism at home and abroad, Maness brings experience to the table that is lacking in other potential GOP candidates.

“My broad national security and leadership experience is a skill set sorely needed by our state to protect our citizens and my commitment to principle is what’s needed to fight the Washington Cartel,” said Maness, who had a 32-year career as an officer in the United States Air Force.

He was on duty in the Pentagon during the September 11 terror attacks and has been widely praised for his casualty care and damage control efforts, as well as for being a commander of a combat B-1 bomber squadron. The retired colonel also commanded the sixth-largest Air Force Base in the world, conducted air intelligence operations and was awarded the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Air Medal (among many others).

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who recently ended his campaign for the Republican nomination, has been mentioned as another potential GOP candidate. However, his failed bid and low poll numbers aren’t at all indicative that he could mount an overwhelming challenge to the “runner up” from the previous cycle. In 2014, conservative leaders and groups such as Governor Sarah Palin, the Senate Conservatives Fund, the Family Research Council and Eagle Forum, all endorsed his candidacy.

Maness could also enjoy another built-in electoral advantage in this otherwise extraordinary cycle. He is the founder of GATORPAC, a super-PAC established to support liberty-minded citizens in “outsider” campaigns against seasoned politicians. If the cycle continues to favor outsiders–and, there’s certainly no evidence as of now to suggest it won’t–Maness could start as the early favorite.

PRESS RELEASE CAMPAIGN BIOGRAPHY

Colonel Maness holds Masters Degrees from the Harvard Kennedy School, the United States Navy War College, and the United States Air Force Air Command and Staff College. He graduated Cum Laude from the University of Tampa with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Management Information Systems.

Maness and his wife Candy reside in Madisonville, Louisiana and have five children (including three sons serving in the armed forces) and four grandchildren.

Retired Air Force Colonel Rob Maness announced

Video

[brid video=”21959″ player=”2077″ title=”Katrina Pierson vs. S.E. Cupp on Trump Ban So What Theyre Muslim!”]

Katrina Pierson, a national spokeswoman for Donald Trump, bluntly responded to conservative pundit S.E. Cupp while defending the controversial proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. on CNN.

“So what? They’re Muslim!”

Katrina Pierson told S.E. Cupp while defending the Republican frontrunner’s controversial proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. Cupp appeared on CNN Tuesday and slammed Trump’s plan as “un-American” and “Unconstitutional.”

“I don’t see a shred of what Donald Trump is suggesting that is conservative by nature,” Cupp said. “So I’m not really sure what his supporters are turned on here. He can’t deliver on half the promises he’s made, because they will either need Congress to go bananas and go crazy or to change the Constitution.”

Pierson shot back at Cupp, pointing out Trump’s proposal to ban a specific religious group from entering the U.S. was “nothing new” in history, which triggered a smirk from Cupp. Pierson characterized opponents of Trump’s plan as being in favor of allowing “insurgents” to immigrate to the U.S.

“No one is talking about insurgents!” Cupp quipped. “Who wants insurgents to come over?”

“Yes, from Arab nations,” Pierson responded. “You know what? So what? They’re Muslim!”

So what? That’s not the America we live in, Pierson!” she said.

Katrina Pierson, a national spokeswoman for Donald

Policy

national-debt-capitol-hill-budget

(Photo: PBS)

Here’s a simple rule. When a politicians says a new program will cost X, hide your wallet because it actually will cost three or four times as much. Or even more.

ObamaCare is a particularly painful example from recent history.

Simply stated, politicians and bureaucrats routinely under-estimate costs because they figure once a project or program is underway, voters can be tricked into throwing good money after bad.

It happens all the time in Washington. And it happens in other nations as well.

And even though I’m a fan of decentralization, that doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to the fact that state and local governments are very capable of similar behavior.

Consider, for example, the streetcar project in our Washington, DC. The main problem is that taxpayers are getting reamed. The current price tag, according to a report in the Washington Times, is about $3 billion.

And what are taxpayers getting for that “investment”?

So far, based on a story in one of the city’s other newspapers, the Washington Post, they’re getting long delays.

In the early 2000s, an ambitious band of city officials set out to cut through the bureaucratic mire and launch a vast streetcar network that would be a model for the nation, eventually running 20 to 40 miles or more. The first leg was supposed to open in 2006. But as 2015 comes to a close, officials are scrambling toward their latest goal of opening a diminished, 2.2-mile streetcar line.

But major delays are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Post‘s report highlights how one small part of the project – a maintenance facility for the streetcars – has become symbolic of grotesque cost overruns and waste.

The District is spending three or four times what other cities have to build a maintenance facility for its fledging streetcar system… The “Car Barn” project was originally designed as a simple garage and rail yard for light repairs and storage, with some offices for staff. But it has ballooned in ambition and nearly tripled in cost — to $48.8 million. It will now include a number of pricey and unusual features, including grass tracks for parking the fleet of six streetcars and a cistern for washing them with rainwater. …The District says it…is projected to open in 2017 after long delays. Tucson spent $13 million. Cincinnati’s was $11.5 million. Seattle’s came in at $11.1 million.

I’m sure local taxpayers (plus taxpayers around the nation that also subsidized this farce) will be happy to know they paid for a solar roof and other useless quirks.

Here are some of the details on why costs exploded.

…the building has…become a teaching tool for how public projects can be saddled with immense new costs. The historic designation “prompted an immediate six-month stop-work order,” DDOT said, and required, along with the green building rules, numerous upgrades. Those included using stone and brick materials; adding a saw-toothed roof with skylights; and hiding a streetcar power supply under photovoltaic cells and behind “green screen walls.” …Among the other major additions was an intricate system of turf tracks and paving stones that allow rainwater to drip into an underground vault for storage and filtering before flowing toward the city’s storm-water pipes.

Though taxpayers may think the “drip” is the sound of their money being flushed down a toilet.

In 2011, under Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D), the District estimated it would spend $6.2 million on a maintenance yard and a temporary shelter — basically, a big tent. Then, with the temporary tuneup location in place, the permanent building, additional track and other work in the yard would be finished for an additional $10.7 million. …The yard-and-tent total grew to $10.4 million, DDOT said, including environmental work and hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep some Dean-Facchina workers on the job 12 hours a day, six days a week to speed things up. By last year, estimates for the second phase, including the permanent Car Barn, had risen to $24 million. In July, the city agreed to spend $38.4 million on this phase, bringing the total to $48.8 million. Among the unforeseen costs listed by DDOT are $1 million in storm drainage and $824,000 in “indirects.”

So what’s the bottom line?

Well, the late former Mayor of DC, Marion Barry, is not normally a credible source. And I’m not sure I trust any numbers that came out of his mouth.

But I suspect he ventured very close to the truth when he was quoted in aWashington Times story from 2014.

…the late former Mayor Marion Barry said D.C. taxpayers would be spending $2,000 to subsidize each ride, calling it “a streetcar to nowhere.”

In other words, it would have been cheaper to hire chauffeured limousines for the handful of people who will use the streetcar. Assuming, of course, it ever gets opened.

By the way, there must be something in the local water, because there’s a similar example of grotesque waste on the other side of the Potomac River.

But let’s not just pick on profligate local governments.

Never forget that the federal government is the real expert at waste.

National Review has a very depressing list of ways that Uncle Sam has been squandering our tax dollars.

Federal spending gets more ridiculous every year, and a new congressional report details 100 of the most egregious examples. Following in the footsteps of chronic-waste chronicler Tom Coburn, Oklahoma senator James Lankford published “Federal Fumbles” late on Monday afternoon. …Here are NR’s top-ten favorite — which is to say, most scoff-worthy and absurd — examples of how the government wastes your time, energy, and hard-earned cash.

Here are some of the highlights, though lowlights might be a better term.

…the Department of Defense…approved a $283,500 grant to monitor the day-to-day life of baby gnatchatchers. …the U.S. National Institutes of Health…announced it would grant some hapless grad student $48,500 to pen the definitive history of smoking in Russia over the past 130 years. …the National Science Foundation…gave Massachusetts Institute of Technology more than $400k to ponder the burning question: “Does media choice cause polarization, or does polarization cause media choice?” …five federal agencies alone spent $3.1 billion on workers placed on administrative leave in a two-year timespan. A lot of that cash — $775 million, to be exact — went to public employees banned from their desks for more than a month. …The National Park Service forked over $5,000 to Mars Hill University so it could make a documentary film about a local musician. …$65,473 to figure out what bugs do near a lightbulb…$35,000 for solar-powered beer.

To be sure, these items are just a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending.

And these examples of pork-barrel waste also are minor compared to all the supposedly non-controversial outlays that are part of the discretionary budget that funds various agencies and departments.

That being said, keep the above list in mind the next time some politicians says that we need more taxes to finance ever-bigger government.

And never forget that the real waste is when governments spend money on things that should in the private sector or civil society. In other words, the real waste is about 80 percent-90 percent of what happens in Washington.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

When a politicians says a new government

Opinion

Obama-Paris-Statement

Barack Obama delivers a statement on the attacks in Paris from the press briefing room on Friday Nov. 13, 2015. (Photo: Pete Souza)

So many legacies; so many symbols. As President Obama enters his last months in the White House, and the question of his legacy swirls, several choices come to mind: There’s ObamaCare socialism.

There’s quantitative easing and the whole magic money thing. Speaking of, there’s the loss of America’s AAA credit rating.

There’s the showdowns with citizens about the border – and the showdown with cattle ranchers in Nevada. There’s the bus dumping of illegal minors at a community near you.

There’s the rise and spread of ISIS, the administration’s blind eye to the persecution of Christians – the administration’s blind eye to the IRS persecution of Republicans. And the administration’s blind eye to the criminals and potential terrorists skipping up from Mexico. There’s gun control and no border control, fights with Israel to win favor with Iran.

Somebody cue Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire” and bring in a good lyricist. The list goes on.

But the assortment of images that could be used to capture such legacies is equally long. How about putting the picture of a magician pulling a rabbit out of its hat on the dollar bill? The magician’s face could even be Obama’s – for added symbolism, that is. Or maybe we could simply fly white flags of surrender along the southern-most tips of southern states’ boundaries say, every 10 feet or so. Or brand a special pen and cell phone gift set to memorialize Obama’s famous-and-favorite mantra, “Who Needs Congress?”

A t-shirt of a random police department, with the words, “Whites Need Not Apply?”

A desktop paperweight forged from the melted steel of confiscated guns?

A world map that contains a Palestine but no Israel?

Just some thoughts.

But the symbol that sums up all Obama’s legacies – the one that really encompasses all the president’s passions, from killing the American economy through regulation to killing the American family through forced transgender and gay rights – is this: Bruce Jenner.

Or Caitlyn Jenner.

Whichever. Bruce Jenner in a dress – which is to say, Caitlyn Jenner.

Regardless, set the figure to a bobble head and that’s Obama’s legacy in a nutshell. Why?

Go back in time to 1976, the height of the Cold War and tense relations between the Soviet Union and America. It’s the Summer Olympics in Montreal and the Soviet’s Mykoloa Avilov is fiercely defending his 1972 gold win in the decathlon. Here comes Jenner – who wins it. And in so doing, he captures not only the hearts of adoring American fans, who dub him the “world’s greatest athlete,” but also secures his long-running iconic placement on boxes upon boxes of Wheaties breakfast cereal – all while shooting a not-so-subtle middle finger Russia’s way. In America’s centennial year, no less. Quite an accomplishment.

Now fast-forward to 2015 and Jenner’s abandonment of manhood – his girlification, so to speak.

Isn’t that how America’s morphed under Obama?

Our once unquestioned mightiness is in doubt; our once unparalleled status on the world stage as A-Number One uncertain. Our dollar is down. Our foreign policy, a shambles; our education system, subpar; our exceptionalism, mocked and degraded – and not just by our enemies. Obama himself regularly downplays America’s greatness.

America, the mighty Olympian, has fallen from grace. We’ve ceded the gold to another. We’ve gone girly, just like that other great American Olympian of yesteryear.

So this president’s legacy? Truly, nothing says Obama like a Jenner bobble head.

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

How a litany of scandals and a

US

San-Bernardino-shooters

Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, the suspects responsible for the San Bernardino Islamic terror attack. (Photos: AP/EPA)

The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered new details on Wednesday surrounding the radicalization of the Islamic terrorists responsible for the San Bernardino attacks. FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee during testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday that both individuals in the jihadi couple “were already radicalized before they started dating or courting each other online.”

“San Bernardino involved two killers who were radicalized quite a long time before the attack,” Director Comey told the committee. “In fact, our investigation to date, which i can only say so much about at this point, indicates that they were already radicalized before they started dating or courting each other online. And online as early as the end of 2013 they were talking to each other about jihad and martyrdom before they became engaged, married and lived together in the United States.”

Syed Farook and his Pakistani-born wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 Americans and wounded more than 20 after they stormed into a conference room where his employer was holding a Christmas party and opened fire. The Islamic State (ISIS) official radio station aired a statement following the terror attack in San Bernardino claiming it was carried out by two “supporters.” of ISIS. The ISIS radio broadcast praised the attacks and called Farook and Malik “lions,” ”fighters” or “mujahedeen.”

Federal law enforcement officials initially suspected that Malik had radicalized Farook, given her rather murky past in Pakistan and radical history in Saudi Arabia, where the couple was married. However, the investigation has cast serious doubt and concern on at least Farook’s mother and father, both of which PPD has learned have been put on terrorist watch lists.

FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday the

Politics

Hillary-Clinton-Benghazi-hearing

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton listens to a question as she testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2015. Reuters

Yet another Benghazi lie has unraveled with the release of documents obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch. The newly obtained emails shared with People’s Pundit Daily contradict statements made by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta under oath before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013, as well as multiple statements on multiple occasions by then-Secretary of State Hillary 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 attack had begun and leaves plenty of time to prevent the second wave on the annex.

“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.”

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.

Three operators who fought side-by-side with Woods and Doherty went so far as to claim that Ambassador Chris Stevens would likely have lived if the weren’t given the order.

In the end, they disobeyed the order after roughly 30 minutes and traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support to U.S. personnel, but it was too late.

“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.”

Matt Wolking, spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Wednesday that lawmakers investigating the terror attack obtained the email and will address it in the final report.

“The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months,” Wolking said in a statement. “While the Committee does not rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers, I can confirm that we obtained the unredacted version of this email last year, in addition to Jake Sullivan’s response.”

Meanwhile, during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Clinton, now the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, said she did not lie to the families of the Benghazi victims when she erroneously blamed the YouTube video for the attack. Clinton claimed instead she was caught up in “the fog of war.”

However, as PPD has extensively repeatedly reported (here and here), Clinton and her aides–including Cheryl Mills–knew the YouTube video was a ruse and, in fact, played a central role in manufacturing the story, Yet, Mrs. Clinton conscientiously lied to the Benghazi victims’ families in the wake of the attack, and repeatedly lied to media, lawmakers in Congress and the American people.

George Stephanopoulos, a longtime Clinton ally now posing as a journalist, asked about another separate email uncovered by the select committee showing Hillary had told the Egyptian prime minister “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” prior to telling the victims’ families and America it was a YouTube video that caused the attack.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, hit Hillary Clinton with the smoking gun at the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing in October. Jordan introduced e-mails that show the former secretary of state calling the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya terrorism to family and the Egyptian prime minister.

Worth noting, recently uncovered emails shared with PPD also showed that Clinton slept through efforts to hold a high-level security meeting the morning after the Benghazi terror attack.

Yet another Benghazi lie has unraveled with

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

Subscribe