Obama Praises Abbas: ‘Somebody Who Has Consistently Renounced Violence’

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the Oval Office of the White House MondayHosting Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the Oval Office on Monday, President Obama described his visitor as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence” – a view in stark contrast to that held by the Israeli government.

“I have to commend President Abbas,” Obama told reporters before their talks aimed at nudging his administration’s brittle Mideast peace effort ahead.

“He has been somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security – a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors,” he added.

images6ZCAV8LPDuring his remarks, which lasted for just over four minutes, Obama made no mention of last week’s barrage of rockets, fired from the Gaza Strip at Israeli communities in the south, the most extensive such attack since 2012.

While the majority of the more than 70 rockets launched from Wednesday until the weekend were attributed to the Islamic Jihad, some were launched by the military wing of Abbas’ own Fatah organization, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

On its website, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade said it fired 107mm rockets at the Israeli town of Sderot, and charged that the Palestinians were “witnessing an unprecedented beloved assault on our people and our leaders by the Zionist killing machine and charlatans of the descendants of apes and pigs.”

US Department of State SealThe State Department at the time condemned the rocket attacks, saying there was no justification for them and asserting that “Israel, like any nation, has a right to defend itself.”

The rocket barrage began on Wednesday afternoon, when 41 were fired, and more fell overnight, but it was not until Thursday afternoon that Abbas commented.

When Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) agreed last July to resume U.S.-brokered talks over a nine-month period, Secretary of State John Kerry secured a pledge from Netanyahu to free 104 long-term Palestinian prisoners, in four batches, as a goodwill gesture.

The first three rounds of releases have taken place and, sitting alongside Obama in the Oval Office on Monday, Abbas said the P.A. was hopeful that the fourth round would occur by March 29, as that would be an indication of Israel’s seriousness.

John Kerry and Mahmood Abbas
John Kerry and Mahmood Abbas

When the last group of prisoners were released, two-and-a-half months ago, many Israelis were riled when Abbas gave them a heroes’ welcome at a public celebration. All but two of the 26 freed prisoners had been serving lengthy or life prison terms for murdering either Israelis or Palestinians accused of “collaborating” with Israel. Kerry visited Israel two days after the release and welcoming ceremony, and during a joint press conference with him Netanyahu questioned Abbas’ commitment to peace. “To glorify the murders of innocent women and men as heroes is an outrage,” Netanyahu said. “How can he say that he stands against terrorism when he embraces the perpetrators of terrorism and glorifies them as heroes?”

Kerry in his responding remarks did not comment on Abbas’ reception for the prisoners – apart from alluding to “the difficulties that the prime minister has just referred to” – and did not condemn the action.

He also commended both Netanyahu and Abbas for having “taken significant steps for peace.”

The Israeli foreign ministry recently released a document on what it called a “culture of hatred cultivated by” P.A. figures and official media outlets against Israel, including incitement to violence and demonization of Jews.

President Obama says goodbye to Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas after concluding their meeting in the West Wing of the White House on March 17
President Obama says goodbye to Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas after concluding their meeting in the West Wing of the White House on March 17

It also cited the veneration of terrorists, including Abbas’ posthumous awarding of the P.A.’s highest decoration to Abu Jihad, who as head of the PLO’s military wing was accused of planning attacks in which 125 Israelis were killed. At a ceremony last November, Abbas called Abu Jihad “the model of a true fighter and devoted leader.”

In 2010, Abbas gave a military funeral to one of the key planners of the PLO’s terrorist attack targeting Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

Obama White House Secretly Rewrote Freedom Of Information Act To Ensure Political Advantage; Damage Control

Barack ObamaApparently, President Barack Obama got away with a subtle, but fundamentally expansive, act of furtive self-protection in 2009 by positioning the White House, for the first time in the Nation’s history, to intercept any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that involve not only the Executive Branch, but any other government activity that the Executive Branch could fabricate a reason for caring about.

According to a report issued today by government watchdog Cause of Action,  an unpublicized memorandum from Gregory Craig – who served at the time as White House Counsel – instructed all executive agencies to “consult with the White House Counsel’s Office on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities… This need to consult with the White House arises with respect to all types of document requests, including Congressional committee requests, GAO requests, judicial subpoenas, and FOIA requests.”

FOIA 01As the Washington Examiner observed Tuesday, the Freedom of Information Act has, throughout its long history, never been modified to accommodate this new, expansive language. A proposal currently before Congress, if it becomes law, would actually amend the FOIA to favor the curious public, streamlining the application process and expediting responses from government agencies.

That’s a far cry from the secretive 2009 memorandum that effectively altered the law to benefit the sitting President.

Although the memo illegally (but successfully) broadened the White House’s prerogative in obstructing FOIA requests, the most damaging phrase is “White House equities.” Evidently, no one but the White House is gifted with the authority to interpret what it means.

“An instructive example of how ‘White House equities’ is construed – and ultimately abused – is the White House’s review of FOIA requests concerning the well-publicized conference spending scandal at the General Services Administration (GSA),” Cause of Action explains. “E-mails between GSA and the White House Counsel’s Office show that the Administration affirmatively sought to review document requests related to politically-sensitive issues.

“…All the more egregious is the fact that the President has used White House equities to reverse the FOIA process: FOIA is designed to inform the public on government behavior; White House equities allow the government to withhold information from the media, and therefore the public, by having media requests forwarded for review. This not only politicizes federal agencies, it impairs fundamental First Amendment liberties.”

That’s as sinister as it is illegal. Rewriting the Freedom of Information Act by any means other than Congressional amendment is illegal, and taking extraordinary, unConstitutional action to rewrite the law expressly to gain a political advantage – including the possible eradication or falsification of evidence of wrongdoing – is a wilful criminal subversion of public service.

Obama Moves to Weaponize the IRS

Tea Party 01In 2010 millions of American tea-party constitutionalists, to include the GOP’s Christian base, united in a remarkable grass-roots effort to rein in our unbridled federal government and return it to its expressly limited constitutional confines. As a result, an unprecedented number of counter-constitutionalist lawmakers (read: liberal Democrats) were swept from office.

Obama IRS 1The Obama administration wasn’t going to take this lying down. Whether it was by tacit approval or via direct order remains largely immaterial. The president quickly and unlawfully politicized the Internal Revenue Service, using it as a weapon against his political enemies. In an explosive scandal that continues to grow, the Obama IRS was caught – smoking gun in hand – intentionally targeting conservative and Christian organizations and individuals for harassment, intimidation and, ultimately, for political destruction.

Not only has Obama faced zero accountability for these arguably impeachable offenses, he has since doubled down. With unmitigated gall, his administration has moved to officially weaponize the IRS against conservatives once and for all.

Despite the furor over the IRS assault on conservative groups leading up to the 2012 elections, this administration – led by a despotic radical who is turning our constitutional republic into one of the banana variety – has quietly released a proposed set of new IRS regulations that, if implemented, will immediately, unlawfully and permanently muzzle conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and their individual employees. (The 501(c)(4) designation refers to the IRS code section under which social welfare organizations are regulated).

Constitution tornThe new regulations would unconstitutionally compel a 90-day blackout period during election years in which conservative 501(c)(4) organizations – such as tea-party, pro-life and pro-family groups – would be banned from mentioning the name of any candidate for office, or even the name of any political party.

Here’s the kicker: As you may have guessed, liberal lobbying groups like labor unions and trade associations are deliberately exempted. And based on its partisan track record, don’t expect this president’s IRS to lift a finger to scrutinize liberal 501(c)(4)s. Over at a Obama’s “Organizing for America,” the left-wing political propaganda will, no doubt, flow unabated.

These Orwellian regulations will prohibit conservative 501(c)(4) organizations from using words like “oppose,” “vote,” or “defeat.” Their timing, prior to a pivotal election, is no coincidence and provides yet another example of Obama’s using the IRS for “progressive” political gain.

Although these restrictions only apply to 501(c)(4) organizations for now, under a straightforward reading, they will also clearly apply to 501(c)(3) organizations in the near future.

Mat Staver
Mat Staver

Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action – one of the many conservative organizations to be silenced – commented on the breaking scandal: “One of the core liberties in our constitutional republic is the right to dissent,” he said. “But desperate to force his radical agenda on the American people, Barack Obama and his chosen political tool, the IRS, are now trying to selectively abridge this right, effectively silencing their political adversaries.”

Specifically, here’s what the proposed regulations would do to conservative groups and their leaders:

  • Prohibit using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject.”

  • Prohibit mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

  • Prohibit mentioning the name of a political party, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office.

  • Prohibit voter registration drives or conducting a non-partisan “get-out-the-vote drive.”

  • Prohibit creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills.

  • Prohibit hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before the general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program.

  • Restrict employees of such organizations from volunteering for campaigns.

  • Prohibit distributing any materials prepared on behalf a candidate for office.

  • Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to publicly speak about incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records.

  • Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges.

  • Create a 90-day blackout period, on an election year, that restricts the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations.

  • Declare political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare.

  • Protect labor unions and trade associations by exempting them from the proposed regulations.

Continued Mat Staver: “We would be restricted in promoting conservative values, such as protecting our constitutional rights against these very kind of Executive Branch infringements.

“We would even be prohibited from criticizing the federal bureaucracy. If this new set of regulations goes into effect, Liberty Counsel Action – all conservative 501(c)(4)s for that matter – will be forbidden to ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ anything in the political arena and we’ll be prohibited from conducting our ‘get-out-the vote’ campaigns or issuing our popular voter guides.

“Further,” continue Staver, “individual employees of conservative groups will be banned from speaking or messaging on incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records – or speaking on the nominations of judges or political nominees being considered by the Senate. This also includes taking on state and local politicians.”

“These are the same tactics used by the Obama administration to illegally target conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the last two election cycles, only now the strategy has been greatly intensified and formalized.

“You may recall that former President Richard Nixon was famously forced to resign for improperly using Executive Branch assets for political purposes.

“Rather than preparing a solid defense to confront these serious allegations, Barack Obama has chosen instead to reconfigure his illegal tactics into a set of ‘regulations’ on nonprofits, opening the door for an IRS crackdown on select organizations,” Staver concluded.

Indeed, once caught abusing his executive authority to target the very U.S. citizens he’s sworn to serve, even a nominally honorable man would immediately reverse course, resign and accept the consequences of his illegal actions.

But we’re not talking about an honorable man.

Watch Obama The Candidate Condemn Obama The President

Barack Obama 09The permanence of the Internet is a great thing. Every now and then, someone will revive, for present-day scrutiny, some sanctimonious declaration or other made by an elected official who never should have been elected.

The one that’s going around this week features Presidential candidate Barack Obama, circa 2008, taking the wood to President George W. Bush, as well as President Barack Obama (circa 2014), for unConstitutionally extending the reach of the executive branch into lawmaking territory.

What would candidate Barack Obama have said about his 2014 threat to use “a pen” and “a phone” to legislate a progressive agenda that Congress – the Nation’s proper lawmaking body – has avoided?

If you missed the link above, watch the video here.

IRA Confiscation: It’s Happening

The following article is from

nftflogo.png

January 29, 2014
Santiago, Chile

I have an old acquaintance named Sam who has a hell of a deal for you.

Sam is actually a pretty famous guy with a big reputation. Unfortunately he has been a bit down and out on his luck lately… but he’s trying to make a comeback. And Sam is prepared to float you a really great investment opportunity.

Here’s the deal he’s offering: you give Sam your hard-earned retirement savings. Sam will invest your funds, and pay you a rate of return.

Granted, the rate of return he’s promising doesn’t quite keep up with inflation. So you will be losing some money. But don’t dwell on that too much.

And, rather than invest your funds in productive assets, Sam is going to blow it all on new cars and flat screen TVs. So when it comes time to make interest payments, Sam won’t have any money left.

But don’t worry, he still has that good ole’ credibility. So even though his financial situation gets worse by the year, Sam will just go back out there and borrow more money from other people to pay you back.

Of course, he will be able to keep doing this forever without any consequences whatsoever.

I know what you’re thinking– “where do I sign??” I know, right? It’s the deal of the lifetime.

This is basically the offer that the President of the United States floated last night.

And like an unctuously overgeled used car salesman, he actually pitched Americans on loaning their retirement savings to the US government with a straight face, guaranteeing “a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in. . .”

This is his new “MyRA” program. And the aim is simple– dupe unwitting Americans to plow their retirement savings into the US government’s shrinking coffers.

We’ve been talking about this for years. I have personally written since 2009 that the US government would one day push US citizens into the ‘safety and security’ of US Treasuries.

Back in 2009, almost everyone else thought I was nuts for even suggesting something so sacrilegious about the US government and financial system.

But the day has arrived. And POTUS stated almost VERBATIM what I have been writing for years.

The government is flat broke. Even by their own assessment, the US government’s “net worth” is NEGATIVE 16 trillion. That’s as of the end of 2012 (the 2013 numbers aren’t out yet). But the trend is actually worsening.

In 2009, the government’s net worth was negative $11.45 trillion. By 2010, it had dropped to minus $13.47 trillion. By 2011, minus $14.78 trillion. And by 2012, minus $16.1 trillion.

Here’s the thing: according to the IRS, there is well over $5 trillion in US individual retirement accounts. For a government as bankrupt as Uncle Sam is, $5 trillion is irresistible.

They need that money. They need YOUR money. And this MyRA program is the critical first step to corralling your hard earned retirement funds.

At our event here in Chile last year, Jim Rogers nailed this right on the head when he and Ron Paul told our audience that the government would try to take your retirement funds:

 

RonPaulJimRogersIRA.png

Click here to watch the video.

I don’t know how much more clear I can be: this is happening. This is exactly what bankrupt governments do. And it’s time to give serious, serious consideration to shipping your retirement funds overseas before they take yours.

Until tomorrow,


Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com

Obama Says That Washington Distracted by ‘Phony Scandals’

President Barack Obama speaks about the economy, Wednesday, July 24, 2013, at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill.
President Barack Obama speaks about the economy, Wednesday, July 24, 2013, at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill.

Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama dismissed the scandals that have engulfed his administration as “phony.”

“With an endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington’s taken its eye off the ball,” Obama said in a campaign-style speech on the state of the economy. “And I’m here to say this needs to stop. This needs to stop. Short-term thinking and stale debates are not what this moment requires. Our focus has to be on the basic economic issues that the matter most to you – the people we represent.”

Obama didn’t mention any controversies by name, so he may need reminded of a few.  Starting with the decision of his Department of Justice to not prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation and the fiasco of Fast and Furious, his administration was off to the races with controversy.  Obama’s disregard for the law has been rampant from the auto bailout to the illegal war in Libya to the most recent decision to administratively decide to change portions of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  Throw in the use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass conservative and religious groups, revelations about the National Security Agency spying on American citizens and the Sept. 2012 terror assault in Benghazi, Libya and the associated cover-up have all brought unwanted scrutiny on the White House.

White House press secretary Jay Carney also used the term “phony scandals” earlier Wednesday in an appearance on MSNBC.  I would say to the press secretary and even the president that just because MSNBC chooses not to cover the stories of the Obama administration’s misdeeds, does not mean that they didn’t take place.

Arming Syrian Rebels – Not In American Interest

Syria flag mapTwo weeks ago, the Obama administration announced that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s had deployed chemical weapons against its own people. The Americans say that, as far as they know, this has only been done on a small scale, with several attacks having claimed between 100 and 150 victims. Nevertheless, they add, this has sufficed to cross the “red line” that President Barack Obama drew last August, when he said that America would intervene as soon as the Syrian military had used poisonous gas.

In a major policy shift, President Obama has decided to supply military support to the rebels. The White House announced that the United States would be arming the Free Syrian Army with weapons to resist the armies of Syria’s President Bashar Assad.

Syrian RebelsWith boots on the ground around Syria’s borders, the United States is without a doubt preparing for widespread engagement across the region yet again, with the aim of the new U.S. supplied weapons being more killing and destruction in a civil war that has left tens of thousands dead in the last year.

It is the assumption of the Obama administration that these weapons will tip the scales of power in favor of the rebels, many of whom have been identified as members of America’s arch enemy, Al Qaeda.

What the President has failed to say in the past two weeks is how supplying Syrian rebels with weapons is in the national interest of the United States of America.  There has been nothing said about how our interference in the Syrian civil war does anything that helps protect the liberty of the American people.

Indeed, given the increasing connection between rebel forces and al-Qaeda-tied terrorists seeking a path of religious extremism, support of rebel forces is likely to cause long-term harm to the United States and its regional allies.