Obama responds to Jerusalem Synagogue Attack with a lie and moral equivalency: 'Too Many Palestinians Have Died'. ...

One Citizen Speaking...

---

• Obama responds to Jerusalem Synagogue Attack with a lie and moral equivalency: 'Too Many Palestinians Have Died'
• ROMNEY'S 2016 GOP CANDIDACY KILLED BY JONATHAN GRUBER'S ADMISSION THAT ROMNEYCARE NEEDED A $400 MILLION FED SUBSIDY TO WORK
• 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACK: DID BUSH PROTECT THE SAUDIS? IS OBAMA COMPLICIT IN THE COVER-UP? WILL JEB BUSH BE FINANCED BY THE SAUDIS TO CONTINUE THE COVER-UP? OR AM I DEAD WRONG?

Obama responds to Jerusalem Synagogue Attack with a lie and moral equivalency: 'Too Many Palestinians Have Died' Posted: 18 Nov 2014 07:42 PM PST Once again, there is a difference between President Obama’s formal statements and his comments on the same subject. Obama’s formal statement … Statement by the President on Attack in Jerusalem   I strongly condemn today’s terrorist attack on worshipers at a synagogue in Jerusalem, which killed four innocent people, including U.S. citizens Aryeh Kupinsky, Cary William Levine, and Mosheh Twersky, and injured several more. There is and can be no justification for such attacks against innocent civilians.  The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the victims and families of all those who were killed and injured in this horrific attack and in other recent violence.  At this sensitive moment in Jerusalem, it is all the more important for Israeli and Palestinian leaders and ordinary citizens to work cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and seek a path forward towards peace.  Source: Statement by the President on Attack in Jerusalem | The White House Notice Obama condemned the attack and not the attackers’ group. But, then again, he has refused to deal with the 9/11 terrorist attack on our Benghazi outpost that saw four Americans killed, including the President’s personal representative, Ambassador Chris Stevens. What he said to a press briefing … (Click on the Video) President Obama did not tell the entire truth when he said "“President Abbas has strongly condemned the attacks.”  Yes, President Abbas -- the man in bed with terrorist group Hamas -- condemed the attack in his first part of the first sentence and then went on to incite further violent. All while his people were dancing in the streets and handing out candy and cookies to the children in celebration. Obama Says Abbas ‘Strongly’ Condemned Synagogue Attack; Israel Sees Response as Half-Hearted and Equivocal The statement issued by Abbas’ office said he condemned the attack,  as he condemns the killing of civilians whoever is responsible. “We condemn all acts of violence from all sources, and demand an end  to the invasions of al-Aqsa mosque, the provocations of settlers and the  incitement by some ministers in the Israeli government,” the statement  continued, adding, “It’s time to end the occupation and to put an end to  everything that makes violence and tension.” <Source> As reported in the media …  Obama Responds to Jerusalem Synagogue Attack: 'Too Many Palestinians Have Died' In a statement delivered to the White House press pool, President Obama responded to the attack by declaring that "too many Palestinians have died," as well as Israelis, in the struggle between the state of Israel and the terrorist group Hamas and its affiliates, including the internationally active Muslim Brotherhood. "At this difficult time," the President told reports, "I think it's important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and reject violence."  "We have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace," the statement concludes, before the President begins remarks on the Ebola crisis in West Africa. The President did not take questions. <Source: Obama Responds to Jerusalem Synagogue Attack: 'Too Many Palestinians Have Died'> It should be noted that the violence stems from the Palestinians who export nothing but terrorism and cannot exist as an economically viable state as they lack basic infrastructure and a sustainable economy. Therefore, they must keep the money flowing from the international community, the Arab states who want to destroy Israel, and Iran who wants Israel preoccupied while they pursue their nuclear ambitions. It should be noted that President Obama has been openly welcoming of CAIR (Counsel on American-Islamic Relations) a U.S.-based propaganda arm of the terrorist group Hamas …   US group CAIR named terrorist organization by United Arab Emirates A U.S.-based pro-Muslim group that enjoys close ties with the Obama administration has landed on one Arab nation's list of terrorist organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was one of 82 groups around the world designated terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates, placing it in the company of Al Qaeda, Islamic State and others. While CAIR has previously been linked to Hamas, it has held hundreds of meetings with White House officials on a wide range of community issues and has sought to present itself as a mainstream Muslim organization. <Source> Bottom line … President Obama appears to be a pro-Palestinian, pro-Islam advocate and centering his remarks on the meme that “Islam is the Religion of Peace.” Perhaps as deceitful as the statement, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.” There is little doubt in my mind that Obama, sitting for 20 years listening to the anti-America, anti-White, anti-Jew sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the man Obama has openly named as his spiritual mentor, has influenced his thinking. Not to mention that the majority of his mentors were open socialists, communists, and/or domestic terrorist engaged in “the struggle.” Obama and his hand-picked cadre of progressive socialist democrats are no friend to Israel, a point he continues to make over-and-over again. But, then again, Obama has shown a marked inclination to disadvantage our allies and reward our enemies. Don’t look to Obama or his cadre of leftists to sympathize with Israel or be outraged Americans were senselessly slaughtered by terrorists. Not surprising over the tepid non-response to ISIS beheading American citizens. Me, I would have carpet-bombed their stronghold city with B-52’s and let that serve as a lesson for anyone who declares war on America. As for the collateral damage, we have sent them to Allah for their reward. Until the players in the region use their blood and treasure to stand up to the terrorists, terrorism will flourish. And, even if Israel did not exist, the Muslims would be fighting among themselves for supremacy of their sect. A no-win situation that we have no business supporting with arms or advice. Let them kill each other and when they cross the line into western civilized countries, eradicate them like the cockroaches they are. -- steve Related articles Obama's Lawyer Trick to Avoid Senate Ratification of an Iran Nuclear Treaty? Disgusting New York Progressive Swells See Political Correctness and Moral Equivalency in Jihad Do the Democrats Believe "Ebola" Is Part of the Solution to Population Control in Africa? Obama's Crisis Control Handbook Obama Aiding Our Enemies -- Humanitarian Aid to Isil -- Incompetence or Intent? UAE Includes 2 US Muslim Groups on Terror List CAIR named terrorist organization by UAE BREAKING: This Surprising Country Just Labeled CAIR a Terrorist Group U.S. Islamic Groups Called Terrorist by U.A.E.

ROMNEY'S 2016 GOP CANDIDACY KILLED BY JONATHAN GRUBER'S ADMISSION THAT ROMNEYCARE NEEDED A $400 MILLION FED SUBSIDY TO WORK Posted: 17 Nov 2014 06:51 PM PST Whatever you may think of Mitt Romney as a moral, ethical, straight-shooter with overwhelming fiscal experience … his moral high ground has turned to quicksand. His reputation for both honesty and fiscal prudence killed by the open admissions of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber who explains that Romneycare is based on a fiscal lie that should have been exposed during Mitt’s candidacy,  had Mitt Romney been more open and honest. Gruber's ObamaCare Confession Needs Congressional Hearings In a January 2012 video, Professor Gruber explained that RomneyCare in Massachusetts, on which ObamaCare was modeled, was based on a "dirty secret" that "the feds pay for our bill."  In Massachusetts, Gruber disclosed, "we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy ... and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about $400 million a year." The governor of Massachusetts at the time was none other than Mitt Romney. The result of RomneyCare has been a massive increase in waiting times to see a doctor; delays in Boston have grown to a 66-day average wait to see a family physician and a 72-day average delay to see a dermatologist.  Source: Gruber's ObamaCare Confession Deserves Congressional Hearings - Investors.com Here is Mitt Romney thanking Senator Ted Kennedy and Jonathan Gruber for their work on Romneycare … Here is MIT economist Jonathan Gruber explaining the Romneycare subsidy … ripping off the feds for $400 million per year to make Romneycare appear to work … “The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, OK? In Massachusetts, we had a very powerful Senator you may know. His name is Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy had basically figured out — Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts — had figured out a way to rip off the Feds for $400 million a year.” Jonathan Gruber, speaking at Noblis Technology on January 18, 2012 This is how the liberals are spinning the Gruber revelations and attempting to blame Bush …  Despite what Jonathan Gruber said, Romneycare didn’t ‘secretly’ rip off Medicaid He's talking about the deal from the federal government that helped Massachusetts set up its 2006 coverage expansion, which later became the basis for the Affordable Care Act. It's hardly a secret. And Bush re-authorized the deal in 2008. The short story is basically this: Massachusetts, since the late 1990s, had been receiving special Medicaid funds through a waiver to fund care for populations the program traditionally didn't cover. In 2005, President George W. Bush wanted to end that funding, worth about $350 million. But Kennedy, working with Romney, put together a deal to keep the funds and then some by expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to help low-income people purchase private insurance. The Bush administration signed off on that deal, giving us Romneycare, which then gave us Obamacare. <Source> Bottom line … Mitt Romney did to the citizens of Massachusetts what President Obama did to America – and even worse, disguised the fact that Romneycare did not work without using federal money to the tune of $400 million per year. I can understand why Senator Teddy Kennedy had no concern about tapping the nation’s taxpayers to aid Massachusetts, but Mitt Romney surely should have spoken up about the $400 million subsidy when he was excoriating Obamacare. Now that the dirty secret,  as Jonathan Gruber characterizes it, is known, Mitt Romney has little or no chance to be the GOP’s re-tread nomination for the President of the United States. No more than another run by John McCain. Now, only one question remains – who tipped the media to the videos – was it an ally of the Bush family, someone from Hillary’s camp that wanted to sandbag Obama and Romney, or someone else? Whatever the answer, Mitt Romney now looks like just another liberal posing as a conservative! -- steve

9/11 TERRORIST ATTACK: DID BUSH PROTECT THE SAUDIS? IS OBAMA COMPLICIT IN THE COVER-UP? WILL JEB BUSH BE FINANCED BY THE SAUDIS TO CONTINUE THE COVER-UP? OR AM I DEAD WRONG? Posted: 16 Nov 2014 09:01 PM PST Can we believe our government officials over a man who is serving a life sentence in a Colorado SuperMax prison? The Bush, and Obama Administrations were and are anything but open and transparent, with lies and secrecy being exposed when anyone turned over a rock. So why should we not believe the imprisoned “20th hijacker” when he claims that the Saudis financed the flight training of the 9/11 hijackers? 'Saudi prince paid for 9/11 pilots to learn to fly': Incredible claims of '20th hijacker' serving life in prison for terrorism as he asks to testify again in court and reveal all Zacarias Moussaoui, 46, filed court documents claiming Saudis funded 9/11 He said an unnamed prince paid for him and 19 hijackers to learn to fly Moussaoui was given life sentence in 2006 after admitting terror charges Government lawyers interviewed him and said he had 'relevant' material Saudi government has flatly denied all involvement in 9/11 Experts cast doubt on Moussaoui's credibility, as he is erratic in court A jihadist serving life in prison on terror charges brought in the wake of 9/11 has claimed the Saudi Arabian royal family helped finance the plot.  Zacarias Moussaoui, 46, says an unnamed Saudi Prince paid for flying lessons for him and the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes in the September 11 attacks in the run-up to the atrocities. The incredible claims were made in documents filed to a federal court in Oklahoma, in which Moussaoui says a prince 'was assisting me in my Islamic terrorist activities... and was doing so knowingly for Osama bin Laden'. The Saudi government has flatly denied any involvement in 9/11. Moussaoui's own credibility is also suspect - as even Osama bin Laden has denied he had anything to do with his terrorist plots. Lawyers for the Federal government have taken him seriously enough to interview him over the claims at the maximum security Colorado prison where he is serving a life sentence without parole. They say he had 'relevant' material to contribute. <Source: 'Saudi prince paid for 9/11 pilots to learn to fly': Incredible claims of '20th hijacker' serving life in prison for terrorism as he asks to testify again in court | Daily Mail Online> The Bush family has always been close to the Saudis, notably Prince Bandar …  George W Bush chats with Prince Bandar bin Sultan in Texas in 2002 Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame and an extremely careful researcher, alleged in his book, “Plan of Attack,” that President George W. Bush informed Prince Bandar of his decision to invade Iraq – ahead of then Secretary of State Colin Powell. (Page 269). As is his habit, he bestowed upon Prince Bandar the nickname of “Bandar Bush.”And, it is well known that the Bush family had deep ties to the Saudi Royal Family, also the subject of another book, “House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties,” authored by investigative journalist Craig Unger.  Prince Bandar is not your ordinary Saudi Royal … End of an era as Prince Bandar departs Saudi intelligence post  Prince Bandar bin Sultan's departure as head of Saudi intelligence, confirmed this week, marks the end of an era for a flamboyant and powerful character on the Middle Eastern stage. Bandar – known as "Bandar Bush" from his 22 years as Saudi ambassador to the US – is a legendary networker and hawk. The Saudi press agency said he stepped down at his own request. (It did not say whether he would continue as head of the national security council, a less important position.) He will be replaced by his deputy at the Saudi equivalent of the CIA, Youssef bin Ali al-Idrisi, who is not a royal and therefore far less powerful. <Source> Special treatment? White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says (September 4, 2003) Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today. The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face ''retribution'' for the hijackings if they remained in the United States, Mr. Clarke said. The fact that relatives of Mr. bin Laden and other Saudis had been rushed out of the country became public soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. But questions have lingered about the circumstances of their departure, and Mr. Clarke's statements provided the first acknowledgment that the White House had any direct involvement in the plan and that senior administration officials personally signed off on it. Why isn’t the definitive report declassified?  After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals. It was kept secret and remains so today.  President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood. A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks. Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.” Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally. The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.<Source: New York Post> Bottom line … Questions abound … Can we trust another Bush in the White House, perhaps to carry on protecting the Saudis from the truth contained in a classified report? Will Moussaoui mysteriously die before providing further information to President Obama’s Department of Justice – now under the control of a corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder? Is this the real reason that President Bush has been so silent on the actions and activities of President Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats? Why was President Obama so quick to release operational details of the bin Laden raid and nullify much of the actionable intelligence gathered in the bin Laden compound? Why are the Clinton and Bush libraries not more forthcoming on the contributions from the Saudis and other Arab states? Is President Obama looking to the Saudis and other Arab States to fund his presidential library? When will the American people be told the truth about the involvement of foreign actors listed in the classified report? We have never been so unsure of our political leadership since President Ronald Reagan left office. The idea of another Clinton or another Bush should be an anathema to the American people.  We are definitely in for a bumpy ride in 2016. -- steve