Saturday, November 28, 2009

Obama Knew Holder's Decision to Award Five Sept. 11 Conspirators

PostPartisan - Holder's decision is embarrassing and offensive

Two weeks ago, in the Friday news black hole with President Obama safely on the way to Asia, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his decision to award five Sept. 11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the full rights of American citizens at a federal trial. Holder perhaps hoped the tides of the cable cycle would wash the news away. They haven’t, for a number of reasons.

We have learned since the announcement that Holder apparently did not consult Obama before deciding to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists back to Ground Zero. No further evidence is necessary that Holder regards the war on terrorism as a law enforcement matter. In a decision with obvious national security implications, the attorney general consulted with neither the commander in chief nor the secretary of defense. He employed a process that might be more appropriately applied to the trial of a mafia kingpin or a serial killer.

Eric Holder Attorney General

Do you beleive that Eric Holder apparently did not consult President Barack Obama before deciding to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists back to Ground Zero with President Obama safely on the way to Asia? So we are to believe that Attorney General Eric Holder did this behind the President's back. Do you believe this?

This is how I know that President Obama knew about the decision of Eric Holder.

  Obama was asked, in June 2008, how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens. Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest
those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it
comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...

"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said. Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts.

So you can see by the very words of President Obama, Eric Holder was for-filling the very desires of his President. 

More post from Wag This Dog.
GM Chevrolet Volt Electric Car get 300 Miles a day for $40,000.
Will GM, Chrysler go Forward ro President Obama's Iraq?
Past Global Warming Shows Lack Of Knowlege in Climate Change.

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Technorati Tags:

Rep. King Joins 9/11 Familes to Oppose Gitmo 9/11 Trial

Friday, November 27, 2009

Barack Obama, Democrats Pledge to Eliminate Osama bin Laden.

Democrats Pledge to 'Eliminate' Osama - Democratic Underground

Democrats Pledge to 'Eliminate' Osama
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction — "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

Osama defies Obama.

In June 2008
, Democrat Barack Obama says he'll take no lectures from Republicans on who will keep America safer. Obama told reporters that the Republicans have no "standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9/11." He said they "helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at
a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11." He said Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because of their failed strategies.

The Obama team believes the Bush administration has downplayed the
importance of catching the FBI's most-wanted terrorist because it has
not been able to find him.

"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority,"
Obama said during the presidential debate on October 7.

Then two months after Obama was elected.
Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

"I think that we have to so weaken [bin Laden's] infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function," Obama said. "And I'm confident that we can keep them on the run and ensure that they cannot train terrorists to attack our homeland."

Then in March 2009

"Good morning," began the President today. "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce [Reidel], that I ordered as soon as I took office."

The President stressed the perilous position we find ourselves in there, and the threat that would arise should safe havens on Pakistan go unchallenged or should the government in Afghanistan fall to the Taliban again. He also noted that 2008 was the deadliest year to date in that war.

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

By on 11.25.09  in the American Spectator

"After ten months, people are rightly asking questions about the war President Barack Obama has made his own -- Afghanistan. Or rather, they are wondering, observing Vice President Joseph Biden publicly opposing troop increases and Defense Secretary Robert Gates foreshadowing that there is limited time in
which to disown it.

In recent days, however, there are rumors that Obama will announce next week the deployment of a further 30,000 troops -- 10,000 less than the 40,000 more troops requested months ago by the U.S. commander, General Stanley McChrystal. produce success, whether the President wishes to disown

Why the hesitation?
When Barack Obama ordered a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan as soon as he took office? And in March he wanted the American people to know that he had a clear and
focused goal
. As long it didn't mean more troops?

After months of apparently agonizing deliberations rife with public disagreements among his military advisers, Obama will announce his Afghanistan strategy in a prime-time address to the nation Tuesday from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

But there are growing signs that a troop surge of that size will face serious skepticism in (Democrat) Congress. Aside from doubts about the mission in Afghanistan, some senior congressional Democrats are questioning the high price of a troop surge, which could cost $30 billion or more annually.

These are the same Democrats that said in 2006 they will double the number of special forces and add more spies and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver.
As you can see the Democrats don't have the stomach or back bone to protect us.

More post from Wag This Dog.
 President Obama Grew Deficit by $181 billion in July.
Past Global Warming shows Lack of Knowlege in Climate Change.
President Obama says Lost Auto Jobs Gone Forever.

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to ant post.

Technorati Tags:

Barack Obama on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Taxpayer will pay for Freddie Mac $5 Billion Loss Third Quarter

Freddie Mac posts $5 billion loss - Yahoo! News

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Freddie Mac (FRE.N) (FRE.P), the second largest provider of U.S. residential mortgage funding, on Friday posted a loss of $5 billion in the third quarter and predicted it would need more government support amid a "prolonged deterioration" in housing.
Increases in the value of securities Freddie Mac held over the period helped buoy its net worth, however, erasing its need to tap government funds for a second straight quarter to stay solvent while continuing to buy and guarantee home loans.
Including a $1.3 billion dividend payment on senior preferred stock bought by the Treasury in previous quarters, Freddie Mac's third-quarter loss increases to $6.3 billion.
The home funding company's loss comes amid a rise in provisions for credit losses to $7.6 billion in the quarter, up 46 percent compared with the previous quarter, as delinquencies worsened on loans it guarantees. Provisions will remain high this quarter, it added.

Federal Government making us give more of our future wages.

On September 7, 2008, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), James B. Lockhart III, announced his decision to place two Government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), into conservatorship run by the FHFA.

At the same press conference, United States Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, stated that placing the two GSEs into conservatorship was a decision he fully supported, and that he advised "that conservatorship was the only form in which I would commit taxpayer money to the GSEs." He further
said that "I attribute the need for today's action primarily to the inherent conflict and flawed business model embedded in the GSE structure, and to the ongoing housing correction."
In 1970, FMae was privatized so as to remove it from the federal budget and Freddie Mac was established the same year. As government sponsored organizations (GSEs), neither paid local or state taxes, they were exempt from Securities and Exchange registration and fees, they were permitted to operate with lower reserves than banks, and they could each borrow up to $2.5 billion directly from the U.S. Treasury at low interest. The faith that they were backed by the government and operated so cheaply gave them access to massive sums of low-interest money looking for both profits and security.

This proved so profitable that banks and other lenders packaged their loans into bonds, sold them on the market for that quick profit (especially the agent rake offs), loaned out those replenished funds,
and did this over and over again with riskier and riskier loans as housing prices climbed higher and higher and security requirements werelowered to essentially nonexistence.

What It Could Mean for You

The ramifications of this history are many. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail and can't back loans
anymore, interest rates will go up.
Banks won't be originating as many loans because they don't have the guarantees they once did.
This means the number of homebuyers will drastically shrink, both because banks won't be authorizing as many mortgage loans and because the ones they do authorize will be out of reach for many homebuyers (higher down payments, higher interest rates, smaller loan amounts).
If the government completes a bailout, as looks more and more like the case, it would use taxpayer money to pay for buying stocks in the companies. It could cost up to $1 trillion in taxpayer money, which likely means higher taxes.
More importantly, it could damage the creditworthiness of the United States, making future loans to the government more difficult to obtain.
With the national deficit at nearly $10 trillion, the only thing going for the US is its credit rating. And when that goes....

Obama and Democrats are Responsible: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

More post from Wag this Dog
Ferderal Government will Loose Billions from General Motors and Chrysler
President Obama Grew Deficit by $181 billion in July
Obama Misleading and Outlandish about Health Care Reform

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link ti any post.

Technorati Tags: