Sunday, November 23, 2014

Few signs of movement as deadline for Iran nuclear agreement nears


Talks between Western diplomats and their Iranian counterparts appeared to be at a stalemate Sunday as the deadline to reach a comprehensive agreement about the fate of Tehran's nuclear program crept closer. 
The Wall Street Journal, citing a senior Western diplomat, reported late Saturday that reaching a final agreement by a Monday deadline was "impossible," though a deal setting out the key principles of a final agreement is not out of reach.  
"We have reached a point in the talks where probably we can’t have an agreement without some very significant moves from the Iranians," the diplomat told the Journal. "No one can say this is finished ... The only thing is we can’t do the job for the Iranians."
Meanwhile, Reuters reported that Iran's semi-official ISNA news agency quoted a member of that country's negotiating team who also said an agreement by Monday was "impossible."
"Considering the short time left until the deadline and number of issues that needed to be discussed and resolved, it is impossible to reach a final and comprehensive deal by Nov. 24," the official is quoted as saying. "The issue of extension of the talks is an option on the table and we will start discussing it if no deal is reached by Sunday night."
On Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that "serious gaps" between the two sides existed, while his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the success or failure of the talks is "still completely open at this point."
Kerry spoke by telephone on Saturday to Arab foreign ministers in the Gulf, whose countries fear Iran's potential abilities to make nuclear arms, and with his Canadian and Turkish counterparts, the U.S. State Department said. He also talked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone.
Officials from the so-called P5+1 countries -- the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China are seeking guarantees that Iran cannot produce enough material for a nuclear weapon in exchange for lifting economic sanctions on Tehran. An interim agreement reached last year between the parties put curbs on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions. The agreement was extended again this past July, giving both sides the new deadline of Monday. 
The Journal reports that the two key sticking points in the talks appear to be the speed of sanctions relief and the amount Iran would reduce its production of nuclear fuel. Iran wants most U.S., E.U., and U.N. sanctions to be lifted if and when a deal is reached, but the West has said that sanctions levied by the U.N. in response to Iran's nuclear program can't be lifted before Iran has proven it is sticking to the agreement. 
As for enrichment, Western officials have told the Journal that any permanent agreement must ensure that Iran is at least a year away from producing enough nuclear material to build a nuclear bomb. 
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported late Saturday that Western intelligence agencies are attempting to insert language into the text of a proposed deal that would ensure inspections tracking the parts and fuel to and from any Iranian nuclear complex. Iran has three major "declared" nuclear facilities. However, there is at least covert facility in Iran, and U.S. officials believe that any nuclear bomb made by Iran would likely come from those places. 
One of those covert facilities, known as Fordo, was outed by President Obama in 2009. The second such facility, at the city of Natanz, is believed to contain thousands of uranium-enriching centrifuges  In the interim, Western intelligence agencies have looked for signs of another such facility, with no luck so far.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Emperor Obama Cartoon


Obama signs executive action delaying deportations for millions of illegal immigrants


President Obama signed two executive actions on Friday that would delay deportation for millions of illegal immigrants. The president, who signed the controversial policies aboard Air Force One, then spoke about his action at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas.
Del Sol is the same school where he laid out his blueprint for immigration overhaul nearly two years ago.
Several hundred protestors lined the streets holding “No Amnesty” and “Impeach Obama” signs.
Others chanted “worst president ever,” as he drove by.
"Our immigration system has been broken for a very long time and everybody knows it," he said in his remarks. "We can't afford it anymore."
But he cautioned that his actions are limited and that only broader legislation would permanently change immigration laws and help the more than 11 million immigrants illegally in the United States.
"The actions I've taken are only a temporary first step," he said.
As if to underscore that point, a heckler interrupted Obama, chiding him for not doing enough with his executive actions to help more immigrants in the country.
"Not everyone will qualify," Obama conceded. "That's the truth. Listen, I heard you and what I'm saying is we're still going to have to pass a bill."
His action will grant “deferred action” to two illegal immigrant groups- parents of United States citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for five years, and young people who who were brought into the country illegally as of 2010.
Hispanics are a growing and powerful constituency in Nevada and the state serves as fertile ground for the president to rally public support.
During a 15-minute primetime speech Thursday, Obama said his administration will start accepting applications from illegal immigrants who seek the deferred actions.
Those who qualify will be granted protections for three years, Obama said, as he laid out his sweeping plan to the public Thursday night from the East Room of the White House.
“Mass amnesty would be unfair,” Obama said during the primetime address. “Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character.”
Obama, who pitched his plan as a “commonsense, middle ground approach,” said “if you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law” but warned “if you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.”
The president did not specify how many in each "deferred action" group would be granted the new status. According to recent reports, the parental group could involve upwards of 4.5 million immigrants, with those brought into the country illegally making up close to 300,000 new applications.
But Republicans have been quick to criticize and say the executive action is an example of Obama stretching his powers as president.
Even before the speech, conservatives said they were willing to do whatever was necessary to stop Obama’s plan.
Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who will become the majority leader in January when the new congressional class is sworn-in, said Obama would regret choosing to ignore the will of the American people.
McConnell, who made his statements from the Senate floor Thursday morning, has led the charge against the president and has promised a legislative fight when Republicans take full control of Congress in 2015.
“If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act,” McConnell said.
Utah Rep Jason Chaffetz, who will replace Rep. Darrell Issa as chair of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News that the president’s timing on announcing the plan was “crystal clear.”
“It’s all about politics,” Chaffetz said. “He just got slaughtered in an election.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in an op-ed in Politico Wednesday that if Obama acts, the new GOP majority in the Senate should retaliate by not acting on a single one of his nominees – executive or judicial – “so long as the illegal amnesty persists.”

Palestinian Authority accuses Hamas of plotting against it from Turkish headquarters

All Women?

Israel and Egypt have Hamas pinned inside Gaza after destroying hundreds of tunnels leading out of the Palestinian enclave, but the terrorist group is coordinating its efforts in the West Bank with logistical help from a command center more than 500 miles away in Turkey, according to Palestinian Authority officials.
The PA and the Jewish State are mutually convenient bedfellows in their opposition to Hamas, which has conducted a campaign of terror against Israel and seeks to destabilize the West Bank.  While the PA officially remains Hamas' so-called "governing partner" in the Palestinian territories, new accusations that Hamas' efforts are guided by its Turkey-based commander Salah al-Aruri have exposed the growing and violent rift between the two groups.
Now, the PA has gone on record as accusing al-Aruri of planning multiple attacks that have been foiled recently by Israel, resulting in the arrest of dozens of Hamas operatives in the West Bank. Those arrests, likely coordinated with PA security services who themselves allegedly foiled a planned coup by Hamas in the West Bank this summer, may have included the cell which, it was revealed on Thursday, had been planning to assassinate Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman in August in an RPG missile attack.
“The officials added that several Hamas operatives connected to the recently uncovered network were also being held in PA detention facilities.” - Times of Israel
“The officials accused Turkey as well as Qatar — the current home of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal — of enabling Hamas to operate freely within their territories to carry out attacks against Israel and undermine the Palestinian Authority,” Friday’s Times of Israel revealed. “The officials added that several Hamas operatives connected to the recently uncovered network were also being held in PA detention facilities.” 
Despite the recent serious escalation in lethal incidents in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and further afield in Israel, including this week’s brutal murder of four rabbis and a policeman at a synagogue in the capital, Israeli and Palestinian Authority security forces still have shared mutual interests in combating radical Islamist terrorists groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others.  
“There is regular cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian police which is continuing despite the terrorist attacks that have taken place,” Mickey Rosenfeld, spokesman for the Israeli Police, told FoxNews.com.  
It was Al-Aruri who on Aug. 20, speaking at the World Conference of Islamic Sages in Turkey, admitted that Hamas had instigated the “heroic action carried out by the al-Qassam Brigades [the military wing of Hamas], which captured three settlers in Hebron.” The three teenage boys were kidnapped and brutally murdered by Hamas operatives, an incident that triggered the spiral of violence - including the retaliatory murder of a Palestinian teenager by Jewish settlers - that led to the vicious 50-day war in Gaza this summer.
Hamas appears to have been given a free hand to operate out of Turkey and Qatar, both of whom are close U.S. allies, and neither of whom deem Hamas a terrorist organization. Regional critics say the Obama administration has allowed its efforts to broker peace in the Middle East to be consistently undermined by its own Turkish and Qatari allies, who provide safe haven for Hamas leaders and funding for terrorists bent on undermining a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. 
Talking to the Al Monitor website in August, a Turkish diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that Turkey’s support for Hamas is basically because the regime of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan failed diplomatically some time ago to influence its neighbors in the region, so has decided to find other ways in which to wield power. 
“Trying to be a major actor in the Middle East and having felt betrayed multiple times, the Erdogan administration decided we have to be Middle Eastern, which means non-state entities should be considered as serious actors, partners, enemies, and allies.” Al Monitor’s Turkish correspondent, Pinar Tremblay, added, “Turkey’s support for Hamas - along with Qatar - hampers Israel’s ability to isolate Hamas. The Turkish government has been rather frank and “proud” of its engagement with the organization, despite all [the] financial and political repercussions.” 
The policy of siding with Hamas, experts suggest, may also be a way for both Turkey and Qatar to continue their campaign against Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has clamped down hard on the Muslim Brotherhood, parent organization of Hamas, declaring the Brotherhood an illegal organization and arresting countless of its members.  
El-Sisi has taken firm action against Hamas in Gaza, closing the key Rafah crossing and establishing a buffer zone on Egypt’s northern Sinai border with Gaza in an attempt to stop infiltration into Egypt by Hamas terrorists – backed by Turkey and Qatar - and the trafficking of weapons, missiles, and Islamic extremists in both directions.

CIA gathered intelligence on weapons to Syria: Benghazi report


A leading Republican wants to expand the House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack by adding a Senate probe, as a new House Intelligence Committee report Friday concluded that the initial CIA assessment found no demonstrations prior to the assault and a primary purpose of the CIA operation in eastern Libya was to track the movement of weapons to Syria.
The report described the attack as "complex" with the attackers affiliated with Al Qaeda. It also said the initial CIA assessment concluded there were no demonstrations outside the State Department Consulate in Eastern Libya.
Referring to the House Select committee Chairman, and the Democratic ranking member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, said the current House investigation should be expanded.
"(Republican) Trey Gowdy and (Democrat) Elijah Cummings have done a good job,” he said. “I can't imagine the U.S. Senate not wanting to be a part of a joint select committee. We'll bootstrap to what you've done, but we want to be part of discussion," Graham told Fox News. "What I would suggest to (incoming Senate majority leader) Mitch McConnell is to call up Speaker Boehner and say 'Listen, we want to be part of this’."
Graham, along with his two Republican colleagues, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, have been outspoken advocates of a special investigation, because they say then-acting director of the CIA Mike Morell misled them about his role in crafting the so-called media talking points that blamed an opportunistic protest gone awry for the assault. 
"Number one, Mike Morrell misled three senators," Graham said of their November 2012 meeting on Capitol Hill, where Morell accompanied then UN Ambassador Susan Rice to explain her flawed explanation on national television five days after the attack.
"I think it's important that for future CIA personnel to understand, that if you come to Congress and you’re asked a question and you give a deceptive answer, you tell half the story, not the entire story, you play word games, it will follow you and will be unacceptable," Graham said.
On Friday, with little fanfare, the House Intelligence Committee released the findings of its two year, bi-partisan investigation into the terrorist attack. The 37 page report found that the first, internal CIA assessment was accurate -- that no protests were involved -- but then-CIA Director David Petraeus, Morell and the administration latched onto information that supported the flawed demonstration scenario.
Fox News was first to report on September 17, 2012, one day after Rice's controversial Sunday talk show appearances, that there were no protests when the attack unfolded.
"One day after the assault, on 9/12/12, the first CIA assessment about the attacks, a September 12th Executive update, said ‘the presence of armed assailants from the incident’s outset suggests this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest,” investigators found.  And while intelligence gaps remain, "No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts,” the report added.
On Saturday September 14, 2012, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes wrote in an email titled "PREP CALL with Susan," that one of the goals for the administration's public statements should be "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."  The House report says these conclusions were "incorrect." 
Judicial Watch, not Congress, obtained the Rhodes email as the result of a federal lawsuit.
The Obama White House did not move away from the protest explanation for the attack that killed four Americans - Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals and CIA contractors Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty - until September 20, when then White House Spokesman Jay Carney told reporters 'It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” and the State Department did the same much later.
The report found the CIA's Office of Public Affairs made three “substantive” changes to the talking points that included the removal of references to Al Qaeda and swapping the word "attacks" with "demonstrations."  It is not clear from the publicly available, and heavily redacted emails exactly who made the changes and who directed them, since the CIA public affairs office would be unlikely to make these changes unilaterally.
When Morell retired from the CIA last year, he told The Wall Street Journal he hoped to advise a presidential campaign, with anonymous sources telling the paper Morell was close to Hillary Clinton. Morell now works as a counselor at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington D.C. firm closely aligned with the former secretary of State. He is also a national security analyst for CBS News. The President of CBS News is David Rhodes, the brother of Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.  
An appendix filed by Democrats did not find evidence of “political motivations,” and Morell is praised for testifying “freely and openly” about the process.  Four Republicans, including chairman Mike Rogers, concluded “Mr. Morell operated beyond his role as CIA Deputy Director and inserted himself into a policy making and public affairs role….It is simply unfathomable that the White House’s policy preferences, or the concerns of the State Department senior officials, did not factor into his calculation about what was fair.  For these reasons, we believe that Mr. Morell’s testimony was at time inconsistent and incomplete.”
The House report leaves no doubt that the attack drew heavily on “those affiliated with al-Qai’da,”  including AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb), AAS (Ansar al-sharia), AQAP (Al Qaeda in Yemen), AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) as well as the Egypt based Jamal Network.  As Fox News was first to report, and the committee investigation affirms, at least two long time Al Qaeda operatives, Faraj al-Chalabi, and former Guantanamo detainee Sufian bin Qumu, were significant players in the assault.
House investigators concluded that "CIA accurately assessed on September 12, and 13, 2012 that members of AAS (Ansar al-Sharia) and of various al-Qai'da affiliates perpetrated the attacks."  And that as more was known about the attacks the "CIA gained corroborating reporting to support their previous assessments."
The House report adds more weight to the conclusion that the attack was pre-meditated because it pulled together more than 80 operatives -- some from outside of Libya --for the assault and it drew on a skilled mortar team.  "The Tripoli security chief recalled that the mortar fire was far more accurate than anything he had seen during his tour in Afghanistan," it said.
The report also shed new light on the CIA operation in Benghazi. Morell said the CIA annex was in eastern Libya “collecting intelligence about foreign entities that were themselves collecting weapons in Libya and facilitating their passage to Syria. The Benghazi Annex was not itself collecting weapons.” 
Newly declassified testimony before the House Intelligence Committee attached to the House report from the Director of National intelligence, James Clapper, as well as Morell, confirmed to lawmakers that the weapons shipments were known at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Rep. Devin Nunes: Are we aware of any arms that are leaving that area and going into Syria?
Mr. Morell: Yes, sir.
General Clapper: Yes
Nunes:  And who was coordinating that?
Mr. Morell: I believe the (redacted) are coordinating that.
Nunes: And were the CIA folks that were there, were they helping to coordinate that, or were they watching it, were they gathering information about it?
Mr. Morell: Sir, the focus of my officers in Benghazi was (redacted) to try to penetrate terrorist groups that were there so we could learn their plans, intentions and capabilities (redacted.)
The discussion is cut short by Rogers, who says not all members present have sufficient security clearances to hear further details.  Fox News was first to question in October 2012 the significance of weapons shipments from Libya to Syria via Turkey, and who in the administration was read in on the program.
In a joint statement, the committee's Republican chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan, and ranking member, Dutch Ruppersburger, D-Md., said "...there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks but the early intelligence assessments and the Administrations’ public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attack were not fully accurate. A mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with al-Qa’ida, participated in the attacks. Finally, the Committee found no evidence that CIA conducted any unauthorized activities in Benghazi and CIA did not intimidate any officer or otherwise dissuade them from telling their stories to Congress"

Obama approves guidelines to broaden operation in Afghanistan, officials say


President Obama approved guidelines allowing the Pentagon to target the Taliban in Afghanistan and to conduct air strikes supporting Afghan operations when needed, U.S. officials said Friday.
The move expands on plans originally setup for next year. One U.S. official said the military could only go after the Taliban if it endangered American forces or if it directly supported Al Qaeda.
The U.S. plans to end the American combat mission in Afghanistan and prepare for a much narrower counterterrorism operation in the next two years. Previous plans limited the military to only counterterrorism operations.
"To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to Al Qaeda, however, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe," the official said
The Taliban's presence in Afghanistan far exceeds that of Al Qaeda, adding significance to Obama's authorization. The president's came in response to requests from military commanders who wanted troops to be allowed to continue to battle the Taliban, the U.S. officials said.
The New York Times first reported the new guidelines. Officials confirmed details to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Obama's decisions by name.
The decision to expand authority will not impact the number of U.S. troops that will remain in Afghanistan. The president wants all U.S. troops to be out of Afghanistan a year later, prior to the end of his presidency.
Some of the Obama administration's planning for the post-2014 mission was slowed by a political stalemate in Afghanistan earlier this year. It took months for the winner of the country's presidential election to be certified, delaying the signing of a bilateral security agreement that was necessary in order to keep U.S. forces in the country after December.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Keystone Cartoon


Obama’s speech, ignored by major networks, sparks predictable partisan punditry


The media debate over President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration has been so thunderous that Thursday’s speech almost sounded like an anti-climax.
The president had not only previewed the speech in a Facebook video, he had fresh details leaked to the New York Times Wednesday morning and top White House aides blitzing the airwaves to defend the position he had not yet announced. And the broadcast networks were blowing off the speech, undercutting the notion that this was a major television moment (though it was big as the lead-in to the Latino Grammys, which Univision helpfully postponed in carrying the speech). 
It was a well-delivered address with an emotional ending, as Obama focused on a college student brought here illegally at age 4. But the president spent much of the speech saying what his order was not: It was not amnesty. It did not grant citizenship or permanent residency. It was not an abandonment of border security or deporting criminals. It was not different than what previous presidents have done. The system is broken, and if Congress wants compromise, it needs to pass a bill.
Here is what happened right afterward:
On Fox, Bill O’Reilly interviewed Charles Krauthammer, who said that “I find the president’s audacity here rather remarkable” and that Obama’s message to those seeking legal immigration is that they were “chumps.”
“It becomes somewhat offensive when the president pretends this is about high principle,” Krauthammer said.
On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow echoed what the executive order wasn’t—“It’s not a green card, it’s not permanent residency”—and Chris Hayes said Obama’s refrain of “let’s remember who we are” was “particularly effective.” They then interviewed activist Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza.
At the same moment, on CNN, Jay Carney was sounding very much like, well, Obama’s press secretary. “It’s necessary because we have a broken system,” he said, where people “live in the shadows” and “undermine our economic system.” Obama had successfully negotiated a compromise with Senate Republicans, and “I was there.” And “most Republicans in the House are in districts with few Latinos.”
Unfortunately for him, Anderson Cooper played a montage of clips of Obama saying he didn’t have the power to halt deportations.
Carney was on a balanced panel that included Newt Gingrich, who said he thinks Republicans will fight back by refusing to vote on nominations, including Obama’s pick for attorney general.
Other voices emerged. O’Reilly, for instance, conducted a respectful interview with Jose Antonio Vargas, the former Washington Post reporter who now crusades as an illegal immigrant brought to this country when he was 12.
Hayes said that MSNBC had reached out to many congressional Republicans and that none would appear on the network.
Cooper moved on to the monster snowstorm in Buffalo. Television loves extreme weather.
The battle lines were hardened far in advance. On the right, there is anger and consternation that Obama is flouting the Constitution, acting like an emperor, and thumbing his nose at Congress. On the left there is relief that the president is finally acting on illegal immigration and triumphing over Republican obstruction.
On the right, it is amnesty. On the left, it is a temporary path to legalization. On the right, it is dictatorial. On the left, it is a challenge to the Hill to pass a bill.
On the right, Obama is contradicting his repeated statements on not having the legal authority to do this, which is true. On the left, Obama is doing what previous presidents have done, which is sort of true but that was on a much smaller scale and in concert with Congress.
Presidential speeches are usually meant to persuade, but I’m not sure how many people still have open minds in this contentious debate that also defied attempts at reform by George W. Bush (who, by the way, was quoted by Obama). Everyone knew what was coming, and just about everyone—certainly in the media world—had chosen sides.
The fact that ABC, CBS and NBC couldn’t spare 15 minutes from their lucrative prime time—even during sweeps—feels to me like a turning point. Yes, we’ve known forever that they’re primarily in the entertainment business. Yes, they have cut way back on convention and midterm coverage. Yes, Obama’s speech was predictable and partisan.
But it suggests to me that they’ve just collectively punted and said, you want live coverage of big political events, switch over to cable news. And that’s a shift that would have been difficult to imagine a decade ago.

Ferguson police arrest more protesters


Growing unrest in Ferguson led to the arrests of more protesters Thursday night as residents grow wearier ahead of the town’s grand jury decision on whether or not to indict officer Darren Wilson on charges in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
Police did not confirm an official tally. The Chicago Tribune reported at least six were arrested.
Protesters blocked the street in front of the police station and taunted police officers until they were pushed back by the officers in riot gear, the Wall Street Journal reported.
A grand jury is expected to return a decision any day now, which is sure to spark a riot in Ferguson. There has not been an official date set for the decision.
As protesters hope for an indictment, a union official told the Associated Press they are not expecting charges to be filed.
"It's fair to say that neither he nor his defense team expect an indictment," Roorda said, offering his impression of the situation based on the meeting with Wilson.
One of Wilson's attorneys, who also attended Thursday's meeting, said there was no specific discussion of expectations.
"We have absolutely no idea -- no more than anyone else -- what may or may not happen," attorney Neil Bruntrager said. "The only expectation that we would have is that the grand jury would be thorough and fair."
For weeks, local and state police have been preparing for a grand jury announcement in anticipation that it will result in renewed protests. Earlier this week, Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard to help with security.
Authorities have said Wilson shot Brown, who was unarmed, following some sort of physical confrontation that occurred after Wilson told Brown and a friend to stop walking down the center of a street.
Wilson told authorities that the shooting happened after Brown struggled with him for his gun, according to reports by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the New York Times that cited unnamed sources. But some witnesses have said Brown had his arms raised -- as if to surrender -- when the fatal shot was fired.

US announces release of 5 Guantanamo prisoners


The Obama administration has released five Guantanamo Bay prisoners after an administration task force determined they no longer posed a threat.
The Department of Defense announced Thursday that three of the men were sent to Georgia and two to Slovakia for resettlement. The Pentagon identified the three now former prisoners resettled in Georgia as Abdel Ghaib Ahmad Hakim, Salah Mohammed Salih Al-Dhabi and Abdul Khaled Al-Baydani. The two sent to Slovakia were Hashim Bin Ali Bin Amor Sliti and Husayn Salim Muhammad Al-Mutari Yafai.
Hakim was the first prisoner from Yemen to be released since 2010. Yemenis make up the majority of men cleared for release because the U.S. is reluctant to send prisoners to the unstable country.
The group was among dozens of low-level prisoners at Guantanamo who were determined to no longer pose a threat by an administration task force in 2009.
Their release brings the total prison population to 143, about 100 fewer than when President Barack Obama took office pledging to close the detention center.
However Obama's vow to close Guantanamo was opposed by many in Congress, and lawmakers imposed restrictions that brought releases to a halt.
Congress eased the restrictions in December, and releases have resumed.  U.S. State Department envoy Clifford Sloan has been trying to persuade countries to accept prisoners and he praised Georgia and Slovakia for their assistance.
"We are very grateful to our partners for these generous humanitarian gestures," Sloan said. "We appreciate the strong support we are receiving from our friends and allies around the globe."
However House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon slammed the releases in a statement Thursday, saying he is concerned former Gitmo detainees will rejoin terror organizations. 
“What the Obama administration is doing is dangerous and, frankly, reckless," McKeon, R-Calif., said. "They have chosen many times to put politics above national security. It’s time they stop playing with fire and start doing what’s right. Until we can assure the terrorists stay off the battlefield, they must stay behind bars."
Georgia took three prisoners from Guantanamo in 2010. Slovakia has now taken a total of eight men from Guantanamo.
 There are now 74 prisoners at Guantanamo cleared and awaiting resettlement. Thirty-six have been designated for detention without charge. There are also 23 slated for prosecution and 10 either facing trial by military commission or have been convicted or sentenced.

Obama heads to Vegas to rally support for immigration overhaul



Determined to go it alone, President Obama will head to Nevada on Friday to sign an executive order granting “deferred action” to two illegal immigrant groups- parents of United States citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for five years, and young people who who were brought into the country illegally as of 2010.
Obama will sign the executive order at the same Las Vegas high school where he unveiled his sweeping blueprint for a national immigration overhaul nearly two years ago. 
Hispanics are a growing and powerful constituency in Nevada and the state serves as fertile ground for the president to rally public support. 
During a 15-minute primetime speech Thursday, Obama said his administration will start accepting applications from illegal immigrants who seek the deferred actions.
Those who qualify will be granted protections for three years, Obama said, as he laid out his sweeping plan to the public Thursday night from the East Room of the White House.
“Mass amnesty would be unfair,” Obama said during the primetime address. “Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character.”
Obama, who pitched his plan as a “commonsense, middle ground approach,” said “if you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law” but warned “if you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.”
The president did not specify how many in each "deferred action" group would be granted the new status. According to recent reports, the parental group could involve upwards of 4.5 million immigrants, with those brought into the country illegally making up close to 300,000 new applications. There are an estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally.
But Republicans have been quick to criticize and say the executive action is an example of Obama stretching his powers as president.
Even before the speech, conservatives said they were willing to do whatever was necessary to stop Obama’s plan.
Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who will become the majority leader in January when the new congressional class is sworn-in, said Obama would regret choosing to ignore the will of the American people.
McConnell, who made his statements from the Senate floor Thursday morning, has led the charge against the president and has promised a legislative fight when Republicans take full control of Congress in 2015.
“If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act,” McConnell said.
Utah Rep Jason Chaffetz, who will replace Rep. Darrell Issa as chair of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News that the president’s timing on announcing the plan was “crystal clear.”
“It’s all about politics,” Chaffetz said. “He just got slaughtered in an election.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in an op-ed in Politico Wednesday that if Obama acts, the new GOP majority in the Senate should retaliate by not acting on a single one of his nominees – executive or judicial – “so long as the illegal amnesty persists.”

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Republicans ready to do whatever it takes to halt Obama immigration plan


Republicans say they will do whatever it takes to halt a White House plan to use an executive order to prevent millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States from being deported.
Tempers on Capitol Hill have flared to the point where Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., even suggested there might be violence in the streets if President Obama goes through with his plan, which was to be unveiled in a national address at the White House tonight.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in an op-ed in Politico Wednesday that if Obama acts, the new GOP majority in the Senate should retaliate by not acting on a single one of his nominees – executive or judicial – “so long as the illegal amnesty persists.”
Obama has been accused of acting like an emperor with absolute powers, and GOP lawmakers have promised that his actions won’t be met without some sort of political barricade – whether it be at the purse strings, in court, or by filibustering future immigration policy, along with Obama’s nominees. The GOP won enough seats in the midterm elections to take over the majority of the Senate come January, while the House majority grew by 12 seats, giving them a 246-199 advantage over the Democrats, according to the most recent tallies.
“If ‘Emperor Obama' ignores the American people and announces an amnesty plan that he himself has said over and over again exceeds his Constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for Congressional action on this issue – and many others,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
According to the plan, the president will use his pen to give “deferred action” status to upwards of four million people, and similar protections to another one million by other means. This means the recipient cannot be deported for at least two years. Immigrants will have to meet certain qualifications and cannot have a criminal record to be eligible.
While such action will not give these immigrants access to federal benefits, like health care tax credits, Medicaid or food stamps, a number of them will be eligible for state services, new federal work permits, and Social Security cards, according to administration officials who have spoken to reporters this week.
The administration and its Democratic backers have argued in recent days that the Republicans’ failure to pass reforms through Congress has forced the president to take action to alleviate the country’s illegal immigration problem. A comprehensive immigration bill passed the Senate in 2013 but has not been taken up by the House since. “We’ve been waiting a year for House Republicans to come to a vote,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.
“We’re confident it would pass with bipartisan support,” he added.
“All Boehner would have to do is bring it up for a vote,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a podcast interview with Univision journalist Fernando Espuelas. But in the meantime, “the president must do this – and he should go big; I want him to go as big as he can.”
If he does, Republicans say there will be equally big trouble.
“This country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” said Coburn in an interview with USA Today. “You’re going to see – hopefully not – but you could see instances of anarchy… you could see violence.”
Republicans see several avenues for stopping the new protections from going forward. They might gum up any appropriations associated with the deferred actions, though it wasn’t clear Thursday what that might be. They might sue the White House in court, though legal scholars differ on whether they would have a case. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said this week that his state, which spends $12 million a year securing the border with Mexico, might sue Obama, too.
Calling the president the “Emperor of the United States,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., suggested that hitting at the funding level might be the first course of action. “Congress should fund the government while ensuring that no funds can be spent on this unlawful action,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
Obama’s move sparked a number of comparisons with monarchies, the Revolutionary War, and tyranny, with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, going so far as to say that not even King George III had such power over the American colonists in 1776. “It is no exaggeration to say the freedom of the American people is at stake,” he said.
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., predicted doom. “We’re going to be headed for a constitutional crisis that the president’s making,” he told Lou Dobbs on the Fox Business Network on Wednesday. “He’s going to poison this well so much that we’re not going to be able to do the fixes that we really need to do reform the immigration system.”

Sick hit parade: Another Palestinian song praises running over Jews


The hits keep coming in Israel, on the streets as well as the airwaves -- where yet another twisted tune from Palestinians praises the so-called "car intifada," in which Muslim radicals purposely drive into crowds of Israelis.
"Zionist run away, run away Zionist," go the lyrics to the latest song, which is accompanied by a chilling animated video and was first reported in The Jerusalem Post. "You are about to be killed by a car."
The song comes on the heels of another, similarly-themed tune called "Run Over the Settler," which also praises the disturbing trend that began on Oct. 22, when a Palestinian named Abd Al-Rahman Al-Shaloudi slammed his car into a crowded train station in Jerusalem in an apparently intentional act that killed a 3-month-old Israeli-American baby and an Ecuadorean woman in her 20s. It also comes as Israelis reel from a horrific attack Tuesday in a Jerusalem synagogue in which a pair of Palestinian cousins armed with meat cleavers and a gun slaughtered five people as they worshipped, in an incident that was widely celebrated in Palestinian territories.
"Zionist run away, run away Zionist. You are about to be killed by a car."- Hit song in Palestinian territories, celebrating vehicle attacks
The car attacks, coupled with random stabbings that have occurred with frightening frequency in recent weeks, have sparked fears of a new “intifada,” or uprising, in Israel. But in the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank, the attacks are being glorified in song, and in the words of leaders.
“Run them over, burn the next in line,” goes the song, sung by Anas Garadat and Muhammad Abu Al-Kayed and translated by Palestinian Media Watch. “Don't leave a single settler. Wait for them at the intersection. Let the settler drown in red blood.”
Earlier this month, Palestinian and known Hamas operative Ibrahim Al-Akari rammed a van into a group of pedestrians in Jerusalem, killing a police officer, and on Monday morning, two terrorist attacks occurred hours away from one another. In the first incident, an Israeli soldier died when he was stabbed close to a central Tel Aviv train station. The attacker in the second incident, at a traffic junction in the West Bank, stabbed three people, killing a 26-year-old woman. The victim, Dalia Lemkus, had survived a previous unprovoked stabbing attack at a similar location back in 2006.
In the earlier song, the apparently accidental death of a 2-month-old Palestinian girl is used as justification for the intentional attacks. In that case, the Israeli driver reportedly even called for an ambulance for the stricken child and her brother.
Israeli Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said the attacks have prompted extra measures to safeguard the public.
“Extra police units have been mobilized in different areas with the emphasis on Judea and Samaria [the West Bank], Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, following yesterday’s attack there,” Rosenfeld told FoxNews.com. “We have also stepped up Border Police operations around Palestinian areas such as Nablus, Bethlehem, and Hebron, and there is increased security being implemented on a ground level, including regular patrols and road blocks.”
But stopping Palestinian terrorists from suddenly veering onto sidewalks and striking with easily concealed knives is a daunting task, Rosenfeld acknowledged.
“We’re working both on an intelligence level and an operational level,” Rosenfeld said. “The intelligence level consists of finding potential suspects before they manage to reach the streets, and on an operational level we have larger numbers of undercover officers in public places ahead of time, that can immediately respond and react when necessary.”
He also confirmed that despite the violence of the last few weeks, regular co-operation is continuing between Israeli and Palestinian police.
Not so with Palestinian media and cultural institutions, however. Local newspapers and television programs have used cartoon images to laud the killings, adding fuel to an already combustible situation.

Last week, the Hamas-supported Al Quds University in Jerusalem proudly unveiled an exhibit glorifying Mutaz Hijazi, who attempted to assassinate the controversial Rabbi Yehuda Glick at the Begin Center in Jerusalem on Oct. 29.
Glick, who was shot four times at close range, had been in the forefront of calls for Jews to be allowed to pray freely on the Temple Mount, site of the Golden Dome and Al Aqsa Mosque, and previously of the Second Jewish Temple. Their demands, supported by only a handful of extreme right-wing politicians who have been subjected to heavy criticism in the Israeli media for inflaming religious tensions, seek to change the status quo at the religious site that has existed since Israel gained control of Jerusalem in 1967.
Glick is recovering from his injuries, but Hijazi, a long-standing member of Islamic Jihad, was tracked down by Israeli security services and killed. He is being hailed as a heroic martyr by Palestinian media and by some Palestinian politicians who, in contrast to their Israeli counterparts, appear to be doing little publicly to ease the spiraling situation.
But while Israeli leaders have called for Glick to stifle demands to pray at the sacred site, Palestinian leaders continue to praise violent terrorists. A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently referred to terrorist killers as “heroic martyrs... saturating the land of the homeland with their pure blood and igniting the flames of rage.”

The UN gave millions to Somalia. Where did it go?


EXCLUSIVE: The United Nations for years handed out tens of millions of dollars to non-government organizations involved in humanitarian work in strife-battered Somalia with “no assurance” that the money was used for the intended purposes,” according to a report by the U.N.’s own internal auditing watchdog.
In fact, they concluded, “there was no effective financial monitoring” of the work.
According to the watchdogs, any subcontractors used by the NGOs to help carry out their work were not listed in U.N. agreements, meaning that the U.N. may lack any legal right to find out whether the money it handed over went for the proper purposes. 
And atop all that, the U.N.’s chief humanitarian coordinator, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, lacked any appropriate guidelines for handing out the money in the first place. So instead it handed over more than 80 percent of its project funding in advance of any work done, on a quick-impact emergency basis, a method that the auditors said should be ended “immediately” -- but which apparently is continuing into next year.
Those conclusions vary considerably from what OCHA said at the time about its “accountability” for the money under its care:  that it kept meticulous and carefully supervised records on who was doing what and where, with auditing of all projects to guarantee financial probity, and an elaborate system of reporting on “achievements against planned activities and outcomes.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE OCHA “ACCOUNTABILITY” DOCUMENT
According to the U.N.’s watchdog Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), however, that was not the way things were actually working with the Common Humanitarian Fund for Somalia, described as “an important country-level finance tool which provides quick, predictable and strategic funding to U.N. agencies, international and local NGOs working in Somalia.” 
For  at least 2 ½ years, the watchdogs say, the U.N. coordinating agency’s auditing ran far behind schedule on much of the $162 million portion that it managed from the $262 million in the Fund from 2010 through 2013. (Much of the remainder went to other U.N. agencies.)
OCHA handed over more than 80 percent of its project funding in advance of any work done.
In addition, financial reporting requirements for recipients of OCHA’s share of the Fund varied widely, field visits to actually see how work was done were relatively rare, and the performance reports of NGOs who were paid to do the job “could not always be verified.”
According to the U.N. auditors, the coordinating agency’s overall performance as the managing agent for the Fund was “unsatisfactory”— the watchdogs’ highest negative rating, which they blandly say means that “critical and/or pervasive important deficiencies exist” so that  “reasonable assurance cannot be provided with regard to the achievement of control and/or business  objectives under review.”
Translation: problems are big enough that there is no way to tell for sure that the inspected activity is working.
The Common Humanitarian Fund by no means includes all the money that wealthy donor countries, led by the U.S., have sent to Somalia, a country racked for decades by war, terrorism, drought, food supply failures and countless other woes.
In 2013, the year when the U.N. auditors’ examination of the Fund ends, the world gave $714.4 million to Somalia via an OCHA consolidated appeal for various emergencies, with the U.S. aid share amounting to  $184.4 million, or nearly 26 percent.
This year, the U.S. has contributed even more to the same consolidated appeal: $207.6 million, or nearly 38 percent of the total donated so far. Overall, Somalia’s consolidated aid appeal for 2014 is calling for $933 million.
What made the Common Humanitarian Fund different, according to its website, is that it is intended “to support aid agencies in response to the most urgent humanitarian needs” under the direct management of OCHA itself.
Both aspects are a tall order in a country where conditions are often desperate and violent, and where U.N. efforts to provide security programs for the battered citizenry have also suffered from oversight woes made worse by terrorist attacks.
The auditors’ conclusions about the “unsatisfactory” management of the Fund are contained in an internal audit report that was published last August, based on field work that took place a year earlier than that -- an unusually long gestation period.
Perhaps inspired by the auditors’ impending attentions, OCHA’s own concerns about its operations were apparently already percolating. According to the OIOS document, in 2013 -- three years after the Fund was launched -- OCHA started an internal review to determine whether the NGOs it gave money to “had the requisite capacity to receive and manage CHF funds and implement the projects with efficiency and effectiveness.”
Up to that point, according to the auditors, even though key recipients of money “had previously implemented CHF projects,” they had never been asked to provide an assessment of their own capabilities.
The OCHA review of those capabilities, however, mainly amount to a “desk review” of documents submitted by the NGOs, along with opinions offered by clusters of U.N. organizations in Somalia, who all “used the same pool of national and international NGOs” in their work, according to the auditors’ report.
Moreover, OCHA apparently never quite told the participants in its survey everything it was up to. As the auditors put it, “The terms of reference of the review were not shared with participating agencies to ensure that the assessment was comprehensive.”
What the auditors discovered, in fact, was that OCHA never had “specific guidelines” for how it was supposed to hand out money from the Fund, and on what terms, so it simply used rules for emergency handouts—which were never intended for projects running as long (a year or so) as those sponsored by the Fund did.
The quick-and-dirty funding approach gave the green light to handing out 80 percent of project money to recipients up-front, even as the humanitarian coordinator gradually acknowledged that it didn’t have the capability itself to see how well its commissioned projects were faring.
OCHA tried to hire an independent contractor to do that work, but the effort was apparently a fiasco. At the time the auditors had arrived, the coordinating agency was trying to sign up four more contractors to do the same job.
Along with lack of oversight, OCHA apparently got little in the way of financial statements from the NGOs it hired to prove that they had spent the money as the humanitarian agency wanted. According to the auditors, a review of 43 out of 267 projects under the fund’s aegis revealed that none of them had filed certified financial statements about their activities, as required.
Local auditors who had been hired to look at the projects hadn’t provided much insight either. Out of 205 completed Fund projects, only 64 had been audited locally when the investigators arrived. Most of the audits were “desk based,” OIOS noted, and the auditors “did not verify the existence of any activities that took place” under the projects.
In short, “there was no effective financial monitoring of CHF projects,” the watchdogs concluded.
CLICK HERE FOR THE AUDIT
All of that has now changed according to OCHA. In reply to questions from Fox News, the agency reported -- as does the audit -- that the humanitarian coordinator has accepted all OIOS recommendations for improving the situation -- sort of.
All of the backlogged local audits of projects, for example, have been completed, an OCHA spokesman told Fox News. But when it comes to discontinuing its 80 percent up-front payment policy, the agency said, “OCHA is still on track to meet that goal and expects to start rolling out the new policy in the first quarter of 2015.”
Problem is that U.N. auditors recommended that the change occur “immediately,” meaning a still-unknown amount of  time before August 2014, when the audit, with accompanying to-and-fro comments from management, finally appeared after a long period  in the U.N.’s back rooms.
The same goes for “provisions for operational accountability of implementing partners, including the disclosure of main sub-contractors in agreements” -- these are also supposed to take effect in early 2015, OCHA said.
OCHA declined to provide Fox News with a list of all the “implementing partners,” meaning U.N. agencies and non-government organizations that were involved in the Fund’s work during the long, lax period examined by the U.N. audit.
The drawn curtain is necessary “so as not to compromise the security of those partners,” OCHA’s spokesman told Fox News.
Disclosing those beneficiaries of its funding “would be highly irresponsible,” OCHA’s spokesman added. “Somalia remains an extremely difficult and dangerous place for aid workers. Armed groups continue to carry out targeted attacks against aid workers and ongoing military operations disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance.”
Yet despite those avowed safety concerns on OCHA’s part, a provisional list of the Common Humanitarian Fund’s projects for 2014 -- including project locations, and the acronyms, and sometimes names,  of implementing partners -- currently appears on the agency’s website.

Gruber's contract with Vermont ends after missteps on ObamaCare pile up


Following an embarrassing string of missteps, Vermont has stopped paying controversial economist Jonathan Gruber for his work on the Affordable Care Act.
A spokesman for Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said Wednesday that the state would no longer pay the ObamaCare architect.
“As the Governor and I have said, the comments by Mr. Gruber are offensive, inappropriate and do not reflect the thinking of this administration or how we do things in Vermont,” Lawrence Miller, said Wednesday in a statement. “As we have also said, we need solid economic modeling in order to move forward with health care reform.”
Miller continued that he told Gruber, “that I expect his team to complete the work that we need to provide the legislature and Vermonters with a public health care financing plan. I’ve informed Mr. McGruber that we will not be paying him any further for his part in completing that work.”
Gruber’s original contract with the state was worth more than $400,000. He’s already been paid $160,000.
The news about Gruber was made public at an informational session for Vermont’s legislators.
Last week, the state’s Senate Minority Leader, Joe Benning, called on Shumlin to terminate Gruber’s contract following the release of videos showing the MIT professor intentionally deceived the public in drafting the Affordable Care Act.
“I join with my Senate colleague, Sen. Kevin Mullin, in urging the governor to terminate his contract,” Benning, R-Caledonia, told Vermont Watchdog. “If the powers that be attempted to trick them like that, then those people should be immediately removed from positions of authority, be they elected officials or hired contractors.”
Benning is the second member of the Vermont Senate to call for Gruber’s termination. Last week, Mullin, R-Rutland, a member of the Health Care Oversight Committee, told Vermont Watchdog the governor should “terminate his contract immediately.”
Over the weekend, Lawrence Miller, chief of health care reform for the Shumlin administration, announced Gruber would continue to serve as financing consultant for single-payer health care.
According to the contract obtained from the Agency of Administration, Vermont was paying Gruber $400,000 for “policy expertise, research, and economic modeling related to the implementation of Green Mountain Care.” Gruber’s work will be presented to the Legislature on Jan. 15.

'I had promised': Obama to announce executive action on immigration Thursday in primetime speech


President Obama, following through on his vow to sidestep Congress, will announce in a prime-time TV speech Thursday the executive actions he will take to change U.S. immigration law.
Obama will make his announcement, expected to protect roughly 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation, from the White House at 8 p.m. EST.
The president will go ahead with his plan despite widespread opposition from Capitol Hill Republicans, who have asked him to wait until next year when the GOP controls the House and Senate to try to reform the country’s broken immigration system.
Obama is also under intense pressure from Hispanics and much of his liberal base to act now, after promising to act by September, then disappointing them by waiting until after the midterms.
Immigration lawyer Margaret Wong released a statement saying that she had been invited to the White House for a holiday party Wednesday night and that Obama had told her "I had promised. I had promised."
"He was actually very proud that he's been able to keep his word," Wong said. 
At least some of the estimated 5 million illegal immigrants who would be spared from deportation are also expected to be made eligible for work permits. But the eligible immigrants would not be entitled to federal benefits -- including health care tax credits -- under the plan, administration officials said Wednesday.
Late Wednesday, the United Farm Workers announced that Obama had told union President Arturo Rodriguez that at least 250,000 unionized farm workers would be eligible for deportation relief, with at least half that eligible number based in California.
The president in 2012 used executive action to delay deportation for some of the millions of young people brought the U.S. illegally by their parents.
House Speaker John Boehner has warned Obama that taking executive action on the immigration issue before January would be tantamount to "playing with fire."
And on Wednesday before the announcement, Boehner aide Michael Steel referred to the president and attempt to govern alone as “Emperor Obama.”
The Democrat-controlled Senate last year passed bipartisan, comprehensive immigration-reform legislation. However, the GOP-controlled House has not passed such a bill.
“We've been waiting for a year for House Republicans to come to a vote,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. “We're confident it would pass with bipartisan support.”
He also said the president chose to act because the House has indicated it will not address immigration reform in the next Congress.
Congressional Republicans are already working on a strategy to stop Obama from using executive action, including a plan to submit a temporary spending bill that would cut any funding for related efforts like issuing Social Security cards for those to be protected under the Obama change.
The federal government technically runs out of money by December 11. So the president and Congress failing to promptly reach a budget deal could result in a partial government shutdown. However, Republicans have said they do not intend to submit a budget that Obama would veto and result in a shutdown.
"What I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system better, even as I continue to work with Congress and encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem," Obama said in a video posted on Facebook on Wednesday.
Obama is scheduled to host a White House dinner before the speech for 18 congressional Democrats to talk about immigration and other second-term priorities, then travel to Las Vegas to tout his changes.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to join the president in his home state of Nevada.
Reid said Tuesday that Obama should take executive action as quickly as possible, a shift from last week when he said the president should wait to act until Congress had completed work on the must-pass spending legislation.
"I believe that when the president decides to do his executive order, he should go big, as big as he can," Reid said, adding that he had spoken with Obama on Monday. "I said he should do something as quickly as he can."
However, other Democrats still want Obama to wait on unilateral action for fear such a move will poison spending-bill negotiations.
"I wish he would let the process work for a few months before he did this," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Jewish worshippers return to attacked Jerusalem synagogue


Jewish worshippers returned Wednesday to a Jerusalem synagogue that was the scene of a horrific attack that killed five people the day before as Palestinians braced for more punitive home demolitions amid soaring tensions.
At the Kehilat Bnai Torah synagogue in the western neighborhood of Har Nof — attacked Tuesday by two Palestinian cousins wielding meat cleavers, knives and a handgun — people sought comfort in prayer. Those killed included four members of the congregation and an Israeli policeman trying to stop the attack. Israeli security forces killed both assailants in a subsequent shootout.
One of the worshippers, Gavriel Cohen, said Wednesday that the attack showed "that our future in this world is dependent on God."
Also early Wednesday, Israeli security forces demolished the east Jerusalem home of Abdel Rahman al-Shaludi, the Palestinian who killed two people in October in an attack on commuters at a crowded light rail platform in Jerusalem. Al-Shaludi was killed by police after the attack.
The demolition followed angry promises by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel would take strict measures to deal with a rising wave of Palestinian attacks that in recent weeks have taken 11 lives — nine in Jerusalem, one in Tel Aviv and one in the West Bank.
Sitting amid the rubble inside the family's destroyed house, al-Shaludi's grandmother said she was proud.
"No one should feel sorry for us, for our demolished home," she said, refusing to give her name for fear of reprisals.
Netanyahu has vowed to revive the controversial policy of home demolitions, which Israel halted in 2005 after determining it wasn't an effective deterrent for attacks.
Much of the recent violence stems from Palestinian anger over stepped-up Israeli visits to a contested holy site in Jerusalem, visits that Palestinians see as a provocation. The site — referred to by Jews as the Temple Mount and by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary — is the most sacred place in Judaism and the third holiest site in Islam.

Keystone pipeline bill fails in Senate


A bill to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline failed in the Senate on Tuesday by just one vote, in a setback not only for the energy project but the politically imperiled Democratic senator who pushed the legislation. 
The bill failed on a 59-41 vote. It needed 60 to pass. 
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., had resurrected the legislation ahead of a tough runoff election next month, hoping to show her Washington clout and put Congress on record in support of the pipeline -- even though the White House indicated President Obama would consider vetoing. 
With pipeline backers falling short and the project still stuck in a State Department review process, Republicans already vowed to bring up the legislation in the next session when they have complete control of Congress. 
"This will be an early item on the agenda in the next Congress," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said after the vote. 
Landrieu's intense lobbying effort ultimately wasn't enough to push the legislation through in the lame-duck session. She had been scrambling to corral the needed 60 votes in the final hours of debate, making phone calls and impassioned remarks from the floor.  
The senator was trying to win over Democratic converts to push the pipeline forward, and also help her struggling Senate runoff bid. Landrieu was forced earlier this month into a Dec. 6 runoff against GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy. The House passed its own bill last Friday, with help from Cassidy. 
But while all 45 Senate Republicans backed the Senate bill, Landrieu wasn't quite able to persuade enough Democratic colleagues. 
Landrieu said after the vote that she does not blame anyone in the Senate for the bill's failure, saying it simply proves that "we have to work our muscle a little a more."
"For jobs, for economic opportunity, for independence, for energy independence --- this fight was worth having," she said. 
Her possible road to passage narrowed Monday as Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Carl Levin, D-Mich. -- two potential flips -- reaffirmed they would vote "no." It narrowed even further after Maine independent Sen. Angus King declared Tuesday he would oppose the bill, even though he said he is "frustrated" that Obama has not made a decision. 
Several liberal Democrats actively lobbied against Landrieu on the vote -- Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, for example, blasted an email to supporters on Monday asking them to sign a petition against Keystone. 
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., argued on the Senate floor Tuesday that the project could lead to China-style pollution and other hazards. 
But Landrieu argued that the natural resources are going to be extracted regardless. 
"It's a high-tech, state-of-the-art pipeline that's going to put thousands of people to work," Landrieu said. "This has absolutely nothing to do with climate change." 
The vote nevertheless offers a preview of what is ahead for Obama on energy and environmental issues when the Republicans take control of both houses of Congress next year. 
For six years, the fate of the Keystone XL oil pipeline has languished amid debates over global warming and the country's energy security. The latest delay came after a lawsuit was filed in Nebraska over its route. 
The proposed crude-oil pipeline, which would run 1,179 miles from the Canadian tar sands to Gulf coast refineries, has been the subject of a fierce struggle between environmentalists and energy advocates ever since Calgary-based TransCanada proposed it in 2008.

Gun dealers report brisk sales ahead of Ferguson grand jury decision


Gun dealers in parts of the St. Louis suburbs have reported brisk sales, especially among first-time buyers, as local residents wait for a grand jury decision on whether to indict the Ferguson police officer who fatally shot teenager Michael Brown this past August. 
One shop, Metro Shooting Supplies, located in an area near the city's main airport, reported selling two to three times more weapons than usual in recent weeks — an average of 30 to 50 guns each day.
"We're selling everything that's not nailed down," owner Steven King told the Associated Press. "Police aren't going to be able to protect every single individual. If you don't prepare yourself and get ready for the worst, you have no one to blame but yourself."
The store's waiting list for private lessons and concealed-carry training classes extends into 2015.
Protest leaders say they are preparing for non-violent demonstrations after the grand jury's decision is announced, but they also acknowledge the risk of more unrest if the panel decides not to issue criminal charges against Darren Wilson, the white officer who shot Brown, who was black and unarmed.
Other gun dealers say their sales spikes are comparable to the increases seen soon after Brown's death on Aug. 9.
"I've probably sold more guns this past month than all of last year," said County Guns owner Adam Weinstein, who fended off looters last summer at his former storefront on West Florissant Avenue, the roadway that was the scene of many nightly protests. Weinstein stood guard over his business with an assault rifle and pistol.
The store has since moved out of Ferguson — in part because of concerns about the potential for further violence.
First-time gun owners account for about 60 percent of his recent customers, King said. Among them is Dave Benne, who on Saturday purchased a Smith & Wesson handgun as shoppers swarmed the 8,600-square-foot showroom.
Benne said he's considered buying a gun for some time, but the events in Ferguson, a town that borders his community of Florissant and shares a school district with its neighbor, were the decisive factor.
"Everyone else has one," he said. "I figured I'd better too."
The St. Louis County Police Department reports a sharp increase in the number of concealed-carry permits issued since Brown's death compared with a year ago.
From May through July, the county issued fewer permits compared with the same period in 2013, records show. But from Aug. 1 through Nov. 12, officials issued 600 more permits, including more than twice as many in October as a year earlier. Fifty-three more permits were issued in the first eight business days of November than in all of November 2013.
Police spokesman Brian Schellman said "it would be naive" to say the increase has not been driven by concern over the grand jury decision.
The purchases are not limited to residents. The owner of an online business that sells tactical gear to law-enforcement agencies said his warehouse in the suburb of Chesterfield has been visited by Missouri state troopers and officers from the Department of Homeland Security assigned to help state and local police.
"None of us has ever seen anything quite like this before," said Chad Weinman of Cat5 Commerce, which operates the website TacticalGear.com. "There is an uncertainty in the air that has my entire staff on edge. To say that St. Louis residents are concerned about what will transpire in the coming days is an understatement."
At the Ferguson Wal-Mart, one of more than a dozen stores attacked the night after Brown's death, managers have removed ammunition from shelves as a precaution.
The move to make the ammo less visible apparently did not deter customers. A manager said Monday that the store had sold most of its supply of bullets.

Key ObamaCare official used threats, 'tantrums' to push website launch despite concerns, email claims


A key ObamaCare official engaged in a “cruel and uncaring march” to launch the federal health care website last year and wasn’t open to seeking a delay despite concerns, according to a newly revealed email from her former second-in-command.
The damning email from Michelle Snyder, formerly the No. 2 official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was released to FoxNews.com ahead of a Wednesday House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee hearing on the security and botched rollout of Healthcare.gov. 
In the September 2013 email to Todd Park, the former Chief Technology Officer of the U.S., Snyder characterized her then-boss, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, as a temper tantrum-throwing, demanding official who vowed the website would launch on time "no matter what." 
Snyder implied that Tavenner had threatened her job if Snyder was unable to deliver.
“Just so you know (Tavenner) decided in January we were going no matter what,” Snyder wrote. “Hence the really cruel and uncaring march that has occurred since January when she threatened me with a demotion or forced retirement if I didn’t take this on.”
Snyder’s words may have been prophetic --- she announced her retirement just a few months later. She told Park that Tavenner did not have a good enough understanding of the risks of launching before the website was ready to fight for a delay. 
“Do you really think (Tavenner) has enough understanding of the risks to fight for a delay --- no and hell no,” she wrote.
She later added: “I appreciate you (sic) belief in the goodness of others but at this point I am too tired to pretend that there is a decision to be made - it is just how much crap my team will have to take if it isn’t sufficiently successful – you haven’t lived through the temper tantrums and threats of the last 9 months.”
Snyder was in charge of the rocky rollout and announced her retirement last December in the midst of the turmoil. Tavenner said at the time that Snyder had actually planned to retire the previous year, but had stayed on in order to help "with the challenges facing CMS in 2013."
The CMS did not respond to an emailed request for comment from FoxNews.com.
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee obtained the email and others through a subpoena to compel Park to testify on how much knowledge he had about security concerns with the website before it launched in October 2013. 
The committee is investigating how much Park and the White House knew about the problems with the website before the launch. 
Park has distanced himself from the website’s problems, telling a House committee last year that he did not “actually have a really detailed knowledge” of the website before the launch and was “not even familiar with the development and testing regimen that happened prior to October 1.”
However, the emails from Park, who briefed the White House on the progress of the website, seem to indicate he had more knowledge of the website than his statements indicate. In the emails, he mentions specific teams, hardware and user targets for the website.
The Wednesday hearing comes after the beginning of the second round of open enrollment for the health care law. The enrollment period began Saturday with few issues compared to the previous period, which was plagued with site outages and other problems.
Committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith told FoxNews.com in a statement the hearing is especially important because Americans are in the process of signing up for ObamaCare. 
"It’s time for the White House to come clean with the American people about the security of the Obamacare website," Smith, R-Texas, said.

CartoonDems