Do you need the US Federal Government under Barack Obama dictating your news sources?
Iran says its English news channel is dropped by satellite broadcasting to North America
Published February 09, 2013
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's English-language channel Press TV says that it has been dropped by the satellite that had broadcast its signal to North America.
The Saturday report says that the Galaxy 19 satellite serving audiences in the United States and Canada has removed both the state-owned news channel as well as a movie channel, iFilm.
It said the move was part of sanctions imposed on Iran as part of broader efforts to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies that it is developing weapons, saying its nuclear activities are aimed at peaceful purposes.
The Luxembourg-based company Intelsat, whose website says that Galaxy 19 is part of its satellite fleet, could not immediately be reached for comment.
More insight on what is happening with Iran:
More insight on what is happening with Iran:
Don't trust anyone over 30.
ReplyDeleteTehran: The Intelligence Ministry of Iran said that more journalists linked to foreign media have been arrested recently, Tehran Times daily reported Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteIn a statement issued on Tuesday, the ministry said that a number of other journalists linked to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) have been questioned or arrested.
On Jan. 30, Iran's Intelligence Ministry confirmed the arrest of some local journalists who, according to the ministry's announcement, were linked to the BBC and some other Farsi-language services based abroad.
Earlier, local media reported that the Islamic republic had arrested 11 journalists accused of cooperating with foreign media outside the country.
In line with the campaign against any "infiltration and interference of the foreigners," the ministry "succeeded in detection of one of the biggest media networks linked to the arrogant media camp," said the public relations of Iran's Intelligence Ministry.
The BBC and VOA Persian TV channels provide services in Farsi language in peak viewing time of Iran from London and Washington respectively.
Iran’s intelligence ministry has warned Iranians not to work with the BBC and other "hostile" TV networks, saying that those who are thinking about cooperating with those networks should be careful to avoid falling into the trap of this anti-Iranian institutions.
Oh, the hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting it in perspective.
More Monday morning quarterbacking with a bias and some contradictions.
ReplyDeleteShe's obviously ideologically driven and has an anti-war agenda. I suspect that she may have been a loose cannon. It's no wonder that her clearance was yanked.
ReplyDelete… but you are entitled to make your own judgement. You don’t need someone sheltering you from another point of view. If we accept government or big media deciding what information we should have access so, then the rule of incrementalism sets in:
ReplyDelete- We will only tax the top 1%.
- We only want to restrict this type of gun.
The entire purpose of the US Constitution is to set limits on government control. Today, we have a man who once was a community organizer making decisions to selectively enforce and ignore laws including assassinating anyone he deems a threat to the US. He goes to war without approval from congress. Big US media covers for him.
Now, the government fears a small English language cable service? Incrementalism works and people fall for it all the time. Do you think, this time it will be different?
What's good for Obama
ReplyDeleteis good for America!
On the 37 minute mark of the second video the former Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned on Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would require the U.S. to occupy Iran for “tens of years” and urged instead for a diplomatic solution.
ReplyDeleteCartwright said that the tools of diplomacy regarding Iran, including direct talks and further pressure, had not been exhausted. The threat of military action, he said, can be one component of an effort to press for a negotiated solution, but must be weighed against the danger of provoking an accidental war.
Cartwright explained that, if deterrence is the objective with Iran, then it is very important to first know how to manage the “art of deterrence.” Too strong of a “force posture” could instead have the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy and actually incite escalation of conflict in the region.
Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to the general, would only delay the country’s ability to conduct further nuclear enrichment as opposed to putting an end to its nuclear ambitions. Iran has realized the “intellectual capital” to continue its enrichment activities even after a possible military strike, Cartwright said, and to “expect somebody to ‘uninvent’ that knowledge would be a pretty unrealistic goal.”
The general also assessed that, with nuclear technology being so readily available, the decision that countries face today is whether they want to pursue nuclear weapons, and not whether they have the ability to do so. Convincing states to make the choice not to pursue nuclear weapons, he said, requires a change in mindset. Cartwright judged that, typically when states start building nuclear weapons, it is to ensure their sovereignty.
Cartwright went on to say that the use of military force should be considered only in situations for which “diplomacy has run out of tools,” and then by pursuing military activity we can try to “reset the diplomatic option.” In the end, any military action would have to fit a negotiated settlement for after the strike is over. “You do not end in military conflict,” General Cartwright said, “and if you are going to negotiate, then you have to understand the other side’s needs and wants - and in the case of Iran, I think it is a guarantor of its sovereignty - otherwise, the negotiation won’t go anywhere.”
.
DeleteIf one believes the President, according to official U.S. policy, containment is off the table with with regard to Iran and the bomb.
That ultimately leaves only two logical end-game options. Iran capitulates on the nuclear issue or the U.S. goes to war with them.
The following is a Bloomberg article that lays out the logical scenarios resulting from a US attack on Iran.
War With Iran
The scenarios outlined in the article seem reasonable to me. I'm no expert, but then, who here is?
.
...Chris Cristie
ReplyDelete.
DeleteTwo for the price of one.
.
Mr Obama did not Take US to war, he provide air sopport for some NATO operatives. That he and his do not make that case, does not diminish it.
ReplyDeleteThe US was Treaty bound to act in support of NATO allies. Libya waas a threat to the entire North Atlantic. NATO acting both based on historic terrorist attacks, while preempting the risks Libya posed to the Europeons economic security.
Once a State is unionized, there is no 'Going Back'.
Libya is a vassel of NATO, whether Colomel Q liked it, or not.
.
DeleteNonsense.
.
Not nonsense, Q.
ReplyDeleteNo more than the WMD argument against Saddaam's Iraq.
Or the argument that nuclear capability is considered the same as having built a nuclear bomb.
Not unlesss NATO and the US commitment to it is to be considered nonsense.
A threat to a nation's economic stability is a threat to the nation. The US military has said so, they have made the case that economic disruption now is the primary threat to US.
.
DeleteJapan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor arguing the same economic reason. Nothing justified the attack but there was more truth in Japan's claim than in the economic justification offered by NATO on Libya. There was no economic threat to NATO (other than a few pennies more at the pump, the same thing we see everytime some oil producing company has internal or external strife). As a matter fact, I don't recall NATO arguing that economic reason. They surely didn't want to draw attention to the fact that one effect of the war would be to help the bottom lines of BP and Total. There's your economic reason.
And, of course, the US' official justification for the war was nonsense, humanitarian reasons don't you know, when, in fact, we went to war to save 10,000 people (a number someone pulled out of their ass and everyone else ran with) from being slaughtered and end up killing at least that many including women and children.
As for the US' committment to NATO, the US doesn't have a responsibility to support NATO except in a defensive action. This wasn't a defensive action. The NATO countries had nothing to fear from Libya, a weak, sparsely populated, tribal society with minimal armaments, and no air force.
Hillary and her band of butch bimbos pushed the Libyan war, despite the opinion of the military and intelligence communities because she was made to look like a fool in Egypt and wanted to be considered a player again. What better way to do it than from 30,000 feet against a defenseless target that no one liked.
We have seen the consequences of her bumbling.
.
Roger that.
ReplyDeleteTripoli, 8 February 2013:
ReplyDeleteA husband may now marry second wife, without the permission of his first, following a ruling by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.
The judgement, which overturns part of the Marriage Act (Law 10) of the Qaddafi regime, was made on the grounds that the previous legislation was contrary to Sharia law, which does not require a husband to obtain the consent of any current wife, before taking a new bride. Under the former legislation, if a wife refused to allow another marriage, the husband would have to seek the permission of a court.
In October last year, the head of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil announced that all Qaddafi laws which contravened the Sharia, would be struck down.
US combat deaths are minimal, currently, when compared to the first decade of the. War on Terror.
ReplyDeleteThe US is winding down the Afghan occupation and has no military footprint in Iraq. Neither could be considered bumbling, though a quicker withdrawl from Afghanistan would be better.
Four dead in Benghazi?
Better than in Ohio.
No, the US set a course in the days following 11SEP01.
The US stays the course, on a pared down basis.
Johnny comes marching home.
While the US can still deliver ...
Death from Above.
On a budget.
.
DeleteAnd you view that as a good thing? Lordy.
By the way, the path to leaving Iraq was established during the Bush administration. As part of the Iraqi reaction to the surge, Bush was forced to negotiate an end date of December 31, 2011. Hillary and Obama had nothing to do with it. Afghanistan? Every minute we spend there is a waste. What either has to do with Libya and Hillary's bumbling, I haven't a clue.
Ohio? Where do you come up with this stuff?
.
.
DeleteThere's no justification for a given policy so instead you try to shift to an argument that says, "Sure our policy is screwed up but at least now the screw-ups don't cost us as much."
Ignore the policy just concentrate on the dollars spent.
Lord spare me from materialistic accountants.
.
.
DeleteIn your drive for efficiency, you ignore the obvious. If we didn't indulge in these non-productive power plays, the dollars spent would be zero.
.
It is not a matter of it being a good thing, Q, it is THE thing.
DeleteWe are still in the War on Terror. The Authority not recinded. Victory not achieved. But ...
The tactics are improving.
Less reliance on US troops
More local input. In Egypt, Libya and Syria.
As for the withdrawl from Iraq being planned by Bush, implemented by Obama, you make my case.
Stay the Course!
on a budget.
.
DeleteMere words, rat.
Initially, you started out by arguing that Obama did not take us to war. This is "nonsense" to anyone who understands what actions constitute 'going to war".
Then you play the administration game by trying to justify our actions with euphemisms and bullshit, but your justifications were just plain silly. Try selling them to the sheeple out there that salute by reflex.
Then you try to defend the bumbling Hillary. Hilarious.
Then you say I make your case by pointing out that what Obama is doing is merely a continuation of what Bush did. I thought what your case revolved around was that Obama didn't take us to war in Libya. You remind me of Bob who ofttimes can't remember what name he is signed in under.
Then, in your latest, you say "It is not a matter of it being a good thing..."as long as we "Stay the Course!" "on a budget".
So, your completely amoral approach to U.S. foreign policy is that continuity, in and of itself, is a good thing.
First, you ignore the fact that U.S. policy is merely ad hoc and, especially under Hillary, changes on a dime, one minute favoring one side the next the other depending on which way the wind blows.
However, even accepting that you were right about the 'continuity', your argument amounts to,
"Yes, it's a shitty policy but it is our policy and we need to stay the course, besides look how much money we are saving now in implementing this shitty policy as opposed to the time when we were spending much more to implement the same shitty policy."
We get no objection to the policy itself merely applause for continuing it unabated and at a cheaper cost. I remind you once again of Einstein's definition of insanity.
Your views, IMO, are amoral and fatuous.
.
.
DeleteAnd I mean that in the best possible way.
As I've stated, my wife is demanding that I lighten up and I am trying my best.
Likewise, if Bob takes offense at me citing him as an exemplar, I apologize.
.
I would counter, Q, with ...
DeleteThe US has been after Libyan, State sponsered terrorism, since Lockerbee . The US has been on course with Colonel Q since Reagan. When London released the cancer victim, Colonel Q had to go.
The US did not 'Go to War' in Libya. Nor with Libya.
The President did not violate the War Powers Act.
Nope.
You may not like US policies, but they are strategicly steady while being tacticly flexible.
You say the US is bumbling, I see a steady course.
The continued destabilization of the Islamic Arc.
The promotion of anarchy and civil disturbance, there.
Morality is not the issue.
Continuity, at lower cost, is.
That is what Obama is providing.
Eygpt, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Yemen all in turmoil.
That was the goal of US policy, we are succeeding at achieving it.
The US interests are being well served.
Ohio, the reference is to Kent State.
Four dead, killed by US troops.
Better State & CIA dead in Benghazi, then a 'REAL' war, in Libya.
Or Four Dead in Ohio.
Metaphoricly speaking.
As to whether the policy is 'Good', 'Bad', 'Immoral or Fatuous', that is another thing entirely.
.
DeleteThe US has been after Libyan, State sponsered terrorism, since Lockerbee .
And yet, because Q pledged to give up all aspirations of getting the bomb and started helping the US on the WOT, we said all is forgiven. Condi said Q was someone we could work with. I would suggest the connection you posit is speculative at best and that our offensive attack was merely on a target of opportunity that no one liked and so which few would defend. Some would say a sitting duck, easy peasy.
The US did not 'Go to War' in Libya. Nor with Libya.
Nonsense. Read up on what constitutes and act of war. Establishing a no fly zone is an act of war just as establishing a blockade is an act of war. That you buy into the euphemisms that the government offers of for the sheeple is telling. Please don't tell me that you actually believe the description of a limited humanitarian intervention involving kinetic military action defines anything less than war. If so, join the sheeple. Your credulity is embarrassing.
You may not like US policies, but they are strategicly steady while being tacticly flexible.
You are right. I don't like them. The fact that they are efficient means less than nothing to me. Need I point out histories lessons on which countries were most 'efficient' at dealing out carnage?
That is what Obama is providing.
Eygpt, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Yemen all in turmoil.
That was the goal of US policy, we are succeeding at achieving it.
More nonsense. Merely something you pulled out of your ass. You argued US strategy was set by Bush and continued by Obama. The ME in turmoil? The Bush strategy was based on the neocon wet dream of using US force and influence to bring democracy to the ME assuring the spread of American 'values'. In fact, that strategy failed miserably. (I will point out the obvious proof of that when you object.)
If Obama is in fact pursuing the strategy you have just outlined, it varies significantly from that of the neocons and it rules out your continuity meme.
The US interests are being well served.
More nonsense.
Ohio, the reference is to Kent State.
Four dead, killed by US troops.
Of course, I knew what you were talking about. I was merely appalled by the strained analogy.
As to whether the policy is 'Good', 'Bad', 'Immoral or Fatuous', that is another thing entirely.
As I said, IMO, amoral and fatuous as are those who argue for them.
.
.
DeleteEdit.
change
...Nonsense...
to
...I disagree...
and
Merely something you pulled out of your ass.
to
Mere speculation as to what Obama's true goals are.
.
.
I applaud your efforts of civility, Q.
DeleteYou do enjoy labels.
DeleteThe great majority of the Federal employees are nonpartisan, (not appointed), but careerists. Politiicos come and go. The staff remains.
The 'Neocon Dream' provided a blue print for instability. Societies do not move, seamlessly, from despotism to democracy and whatever 'US Values' are. I was taught the US valued winning, don't know if all the players got trophies where you grew up.
The transition not possible, never was in the Islamic Arc.
But the Neocon Dream sold well in the US.
The Islamoids, hating US for our freedoms, will love US if we impose that freedom upon them.
They bought it in Peoria.
.
DeleteThe great majority of the Federal employees are nonpartisan, (not appointed), but careerists. Politiicos come and go. The staff remains.
True enough, but what is your point? They are not the 'deciders'. they merely carry out the policies that are set by the 'deciders' In the case of foreign policy under Bush, it was the neocons,that were appointed, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bolton, Woolsey, et al. that set the policy.
Their philosophy was well documented in their writings, their organizations, the publications that supported them. Bush knew what he was getting when he hired them, These were no pigs in a poke where you were left wondering what their philosophy was. We see it expressed in policy papers like The project for the New American Century and A New Break and in their organizations like the Vulcans and The American Enterprise Institute, in their heroes like Strauss and Kristol, in the publications that supported them like the Weekly Standard and the New Republic. Everyone knew exactly what these guys stood for.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Founded in 1943, this influential Washington think tank is known as the headquarters of neoconservative thought. In a crucial speech in the lead up to the war in Iraq, US President George W. Bush said this to an audience at AEI: "You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds."
The 'Neocon Dream' provided a blue print for instability.
True enough, though it wasn't by design and they sure didn't believe it would end that way. Google some of their writings and see what they actually thought about it.
Societies do not move, seamlessly, from despotism to democracy and whatever 'US Values' are.
A lesson we would have expected the neocons to learn yet it appears they still haven't.
I was taught the US valued winning, don't know if all the players got trophies where you grew up.
Cute. And I'm sure in the early nineties when the US was considered the only hyper-power in the world, the neocons felt their destiny was assured. But that was hardly the main motivation for the neocons but rather just a means for spreading American values such as 'democracy', freedom of speech, freedom to worship, and all the other freedoms we like to ascribe to ourselves. They assumed that being set free the ME nations would automatically adopt the same values as the US. Delusional.
But more to the point, can you stand there and say the US has actually won, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the ME? To me that notion is passing strange given the totality of what we have seen.
The transition not possible, never was in the Islamic Arc.
But the Neocon Dream sold well in the US.
The Islamoids, hating US for our freedoms, will love US if we impose that freedom upon them.
First, you praise the neocon vision then claim it was an impossible dream. Where is the continuity?
They bought it in Peoria.
So what? The sheeple bought it (until they didn't) and that made it a good thing?
.
CAIRO (Reuters) - An Egyptian court ordered the suspension of online video service YouTube for a month on Saturday for broadcasting a film insulting the Prophet Mohammad, state media reported.
ReplyDeleteThe country's administrative court ordered the ministries of communication and investment to block YouTube, owned by Google, inside Egypt because it had carried the film "Innocence of Muslims," said state news agency MENA.
http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-court-suspends-youtube-over-anti-islam-film-124646401--sector.html
We all hate censorship, in any form, anywhere, and we all live by the motto:
" If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. "
And on the ninth day, God made Ash -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/and_god_made_a_liberal.html
For those who missed it, here's a back to basics reminder of where we are vis a vis our struggle with jihad:
ReplyDeleteOur Old Grand Fantasies About Radical Islam by Victor Davis Hanson
Most things that we read in the popular media about radical Islam are fantasies. They are promulgated in the mistaken belief that such dogmas will appease terrorists, or at least direct their ire elsewhere. But given the recent news — murdering in Algeria, war in Mali, the Syrian mess, and Libyan chaos — let us reexamine some of these more common heresies. Such a review is especially timely, given that Mr. Brennan believed that jihad is largely a personal quest for spiritual perfection; Mr. Kerry believed that Bashar Assad was a potentially moderating reformer; and Mr. Hagel believed that Iran was not worthy of sanctions, Hezbollah was not deserving of ostracism, and Israel is equally culpable for the Middle East mess.
1. Contact with the West Moderates Radical Muslims
In theory, residence in the West could instruct young Muslim immigrants on the advantages of free markets, constitutional government, and legally protected freedoms. But as we saw with many of the 9/11 hijackers, for a large subset of Muslim expatriates, a strange schizophrenia ensues: they enjoy — indeed, seek out — the material bounty of the West. But in the abstract, far too many either despise what wealth and affluence do to the citizenry (e.g., gay marriage, feminism, religious tolerance, secularism, etc.) or try to dream up conspiracy theories to explain why their adopted home is better off than the native one that they abandoned.
Finally, foreign students, journalists, and religious expatriates tend to congregate around American campuses and in liberal big cities. There, they are more often nursed on American race/class/gender critiques of America, and so apparently believe that their own anti-Americanism must naturally be shared by millions of Americans from Bakersfield to Nashville. Take Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s new theocratic president. He should appreciate the U.S. It gave him refuge from persecution in Egypt. It allowed unfettered expression of his radical anti-American views. It schooled him in meritocratic fashion and offered him secure employment at the CSU system, despite his foreign national status. It gave citizenship to two of his daughters (apparently retained). But the result is that Mr. Morsi is an abject anti-Semite (“apes and pigs”) and anti-American. He does not believe terrorists caused 9/11. He wants the imprisoned, murderous blind sheik, who was the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing, sent home to Egypt. And he is pushing Egypt into a Sunni version of Iran.
2. The West Must Atone for Its Past Behavior
Read the rest
VDH is arguing for a degree of containment, dropping US subsidies to Egypt and Palestine and Pakistan. He is calling for immigration control and incremental disengagement. It took us $2 trillion and two major land wars to come to that conclusion? Are we safer than we were ten years ago and was the cost worth it? I doubt it.
ReplyDelete.
DeleteHaving seen some other writings by VDH, I see him as arguing that given current Obama policy and its direction, a containment policy will likely end up being inevitible regardless of what Obama says now.
.
If Barky has a policy, no one knows what it is, perhaps including Barky. Which doesn't mean there isn't a policy. There is a policy. It's just an unknown policy. One aspect of it, to close observers, seems to be to sleep through a crisis. Another is talk in 'big words'. A third seems aid and arms to those most would recognize as not so friendly.
DeleteAssignment: In two hundred words or less, define and describe Barky's foreign and mid east policy.
Extra credit for using the concepts 'kicking the can down the road', and aiding and abetting the MB.
DeleteAh hell, use five hundred words, if you need to.
DeleteI doubt anyone really knows what to do short of more of the same.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on whose money is in the Cayman Islands -
ReplyDeleteGrassley on Lew’s Cayman Islands holdings: “The irony is thick.”
posted at 5:31 pm on February 9, 2013 by Erika Johnsen
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/09/grassley-on-lews-cayman-islands-holdings-the-irony-is-thick/
.
ReplyDelete2011: The Budget Cuts That Weren't
To sketch the bill’s biggest impacts, The Washington Post focused on the 16 largest individual cuts. Each, in theory, sliced at least $500 million from the federal budget. Together, they accounted for $26.1 billion, two-thirds of the total.
In four of those cases, the real-world impact was difficult to measure. The Department of Homeland Security officially declined to comment about a $557 million reduction. The Department of State, the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Emergency Management Agency — whose cuts totaled $1.9 billion — simply did not answer The Post’s questions despite repeated requests over the past month.
Among the other 12 cases, there were at least seven where the cuts caused only minimal real-world disruptions or none at all.
Often, this was made possible by a little act of Washington magic. Agencies got credit for killing what was, in reality, already dead.
At the Census Bureau, for instance, officials had already said they didn’t need the more than $6 billion they had spent the year before. That money had paid for the once-a-decade 2010 Census. There wasn’t, of course, another census planned in 2011.
But to Congress, that was still a cut. The budget bill formally revoked the “budget authority” needed to spend the $6 billion that the Census Bureau didn’t want. On paper, it looked like a huge reduction. But, at the Census Bureau, no employees were laid off. No projects were finished late...
When a Cut is Not a Cut
Rule number One: A 'budget cut' does not mean the same in real life as it does in OZ. The best you can expect is a cut in the Rate of Increase of the budget. In most cases, even that is illusionary.
.
“Night, when words fade and things come alive. When the destructive analysis of day is done, and all that is truly important becomes whole and sound again.” -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
ReplyDeleteThe Big Dipper - catch it while you can -
The Universe is Alive
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/08/the-universe-is-alive/
Quirk, did you ever buy that telescope you mentioned one time? The sands in the hour glass are dribbling away, for all of us, best get to it now! It will be good for your 'outlook'.
See: Saint-Exupery above
No more tormenting yourself with the morning news! No more arguing with 'nitwits' !
'night, love, death and the stars'.....
Delete“When he shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no worship to the garish sun.”
Romeo and Juliet
THIS is thy hour O Soul, thy free flight into the wordless,
DeleteAway from books, away from art, the day erased, the lesson done,
Thee fully forth emerging, silent, gazing, pondering the themes thou
lovest best.
Night, sleep, death and the stars.
Walt
The Friar is afraid Romeo has merely exchanged one infatuation for another
DeleteThis is a close question, and has been fiercely argued.
http://www.shakespeare-navigators.com/romeo/MarriageofLoveandDeath.html
The Marriage of Love and Death
At least they are not talking budget cuts.
.
DeleteGood point, Bobbo.
The money isn't an issue. It's the idea of how often I would use it. I'm far enough from the big light areas but I would still have to travel quite a distance to get into some real dark areas.
I should check with some of the astronomy clubs around here to see how they do it, where they go, and how often they get out.
It would be great to see that 150 foot rock passing so close to earth on the 15th but I think it will pass too far east of here.
.
Astronomy Clubs is a good idea. We have one here, though we are not members. We have gone out with them though and used the LCSC telescope when it is open to the public. Lots of fun, and they often have someone there that gives a little talk, takes questions, knows what he is talking about, coffee and cookies too!
ReplyDelete.
DeleteCoffee and cookies?
I'm down.
.
Back to earth, a parting shot at Barky, who should be impeached, but won't be, and Benghazi -
ReplyDeleteFebruary 9, 2013
The president is lying about Benghazi
Robin Osborne
We all remember when Bill Clinton argued that it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. We were all disgusted that the office of the President had become so low that we were deciphering legalistic terms and arguing about sex acts. Oh for the good ole days.
President Obama's disregard for the truth has made Bill Clinton seem like a novice. His statements are always riddled with inconsistency. Many could easily have been dissected with a curious media, but that hasn't happen. Very few people can lie as well.
Leon Panetta testified yesterday before congress that the President was only briefed once at a previously scheduled meeting around 5:00 pm on the day of the Benghazi attack. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his staff were already under attack at that time.Were they in danger, and who defines danger?
Did the President not care about their safety specifically or did he not expect things to escalate further. No one knows.
The President stated in a press conference on November 14, 2012 as reported in the Canada Free Press:
"If people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there, and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don't know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks," Obama said. "Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives."
"As Henry raised his hand to follow up, Obama interrupted him and continued with his answer.
"I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger -- whether they're civilian or military -- because that's our number one priority."
This President was negligent is many ways by failing to engage directly in these events. We all hope that if this were us or one of our family members we could count on the support of our President. Maybe he was not interested and just didn't have time for that "3:00 AM phone call." He was in the middle of a difficult re-election campaign.
With something that ended so badly the President was going to need a statement that would insulate him from liability. His minions would accept it, his detractors would not and the compliant media would protect him.
When the President said "immediately" that must have meant when I woke up the next morning. Here we go again.
Barky had as much concern for those people as a born alive abortion survivor sent to the comfort room.
Forgot the link -
Deletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/the_president_is_lying_about_benghazi.html
Nice bunch of comments for those interested in this old subject, dead and buried by our press subject.
.
ReplyDeleteI'm out of here.
Need to think of a subject to complain about for tomorrow. Possibly Obama's 'transparancy' promise and how the MSM willingly goes along with his requests to suppress information on 'national security' grounds.
Or perhaps, I just go to Amazon and buy a telescope.
.
Night Quirk, may the angels guard your sleep.
ReplyDeleteDr. Benjamin Carson for President
ReplyDeleteDr. Benjamin Carson Addresses National Prayer Breakfast, Criticizes Obamacare
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/07/dr_benjamin_carson_addresses_national_prayer_breakfast_criticizes_obamacare.html
video
February 10, 2013
DeleteA Perfect Contrast
By William Sullivan
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/a_perfect_contrast.html
Much has been made of Dr. Carson's alternative solution to make healthcare more efficient:
Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed - pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.
Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don't have any money we can make contributions to their HSA every month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some huge bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own healthcare.
We must admit -- there is something amazing about this. In two paragraphs, Ben Carson has offered a free market solution to create competition and reduce healthcare costs that is feasible, understandable, and compassionate. (And one that has already been tested -- it is very similar to the system used in Singapore. )
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/a_perfect_contrast.html
And not just a perfect contrast on medical policies either. A perfect contrast between a decent man and a charlatan.
ReplyDeleteBen Carson for President
The Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon has two big ideas for America.
Whether this weekend finds you blowing two feet of snow off the driveway or counting the hours until "Downton Abbey," make time to watch the video of Dr. Ben Carson speaking to the White House prayer breakfast this week.
Seated in view to his right are Senator Jeff Sessions and President Obama. One doesn't look happy. You know something's coming when Dr. Carson says, "It's not my intention to offend anyone. But it's hard not to. The PC police are out in force everywhere."
Dr. Carson tossed over the PC police years ago. Raised by a single mother in inner-city Detroit, he was as he tells it "a horrible student with a horrible temper." Today he's director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins and probably the most renowned specialist in his field.
Late in his talk he dropped two very un-PC ideas. The first is an unusual case for a flat tax: "What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe.
"We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes. Some people say, 'Well that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made 10.' Where does it say you've got to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot. We don't need to hurt him. It's that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands. That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs."
Not surprisingly, a practicing physician has un-PC thoughts on health care:
"Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you're born 'til the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members, and there's nobody talking about death panels. We can make contributions for people who are indigent. Instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they're going to learn how to be responsible."
The Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon may not be politically correct, but he's closer to correct than we've heard in years.
A version of this article appeared February 9, 2013, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Ben Carson for President.