Saturday, October 20, 2012

ITUS (I TOLD YOU -SO) : WND AND NEW YORK TIMES REPORT TODAY:Administration: Iran has agreed to nuclear talks



Editor’s note: Reza Kahlili will discuss this breaking story on an upcoming edition of “Fox and Friends,” time yet to be announced. The United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program for the first time, the New York Times reported today.
The agreement comes just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend prior to the final debate, which is to focus on foreign policy.
The timing of the unfolding events fits the template for an “October surprise” already suggested by WND’s report this week that the Obama administration had cut a deal with Iran that would end many of the sanctions against the Islamic Republic in exchange for the promise of a temporary halt to uranium enrichment.
The story of the administration’s secret negotiations was broken on WND by Reza Kahlili. Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray”.
While the New York Times reports Iranian officials insisting that talks wait until after the election so Tehran knows whom they will be negotiating with, WND sources say one of the enticements for Iran to announce a halt to enrichment now is to assist Barack Obama’s re-election chances. Mitt Romney is seen as less yielding than Obama and a president who will be quick to support Israel.
The New York Times story spotlights the political ramifications of the announcement on Romney, noting his opposition to any level of enrichment by Iran – a concession that experts say is likely to be part of any deal – and warning his opposition to today’s announcement “could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives.”
“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, told the Times.
Iran’s nuclear program “is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States,” Burns said. “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?”
Indeed, WND’s earlier exclusive report of the secret deal, negotiated in Doha, Qatar, revealed guarantees would ensure the regime’s right to peaceful enrichment, quickly remove many of the sanctions, accept that Iran’s nuclear program does not have a military dimension and relieve international pressure on the regime while it continues its nuclear program. Also, the U.S. would announce that the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists was the work of a foreign country, though Israel would not be named, to increase legal pressure on Israel.
WND’s highly placed source, who remains anonymous for security reasons and is highly placed in Iran’s regime, said that once Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, received a letter from President Obama guaranteeing the details of the agreement, he would authorize an announcement by Iran on a solution to the nuclear crisis before the U.S. presidential elections.
The source in Tehran said Khamenei has made it clear that unless he received Obama’s written guarantees, he would not begin the process, which would dramatically boost Obama’s re-election chances. If the guarantees are not given, Khamenei warned, Iran will speed up its nuclear program.
According to the Iranian source, a previous Obama letter to Khamenei indicated that it’s best for the regime not to give any motive to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, a message that was re-emphasized in the Qatar negotiations.
As reported exclusively by WND Oct. 4, a three-person delegation led by a woman on behalf of the Obama administration traveled to Qatar about Oct. 1 and met with Iranian counterparts, including Ali Akbar Velayati, the former foreign minister of the Islamic regime and a close adviser to Khamenei on international matters.
In the meeting, according to the source, the U.S. delegation urged an announcement, even if only on a temporary nuclear deal, before the U.S. elections to help Obama get re-elected. A Romney presidency, the delegation said, would surely move more toward Israel, and the Iranians were reminded that Obama has stood up to Israel against any plans to attack Iran. The regime’s delegate was urged to understand that if Iran does not stand by Obama, Israel will attack Iran.
Days after the WND report, Ali Akbar Salehi, the regime’s foreign minister, in an
interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel
, stated, “If our right to enrichment is guaranteed, we are prepared to offer an exchange.”
Citing WND’s report, political analyst Dick Morris today predicted the administration would soon announce a deal with Iran.
The Iranians, Morris said, may prefer another four years of Mr. Obama to the possibility of a Mitt Romney presidency.
“I think they feel that Romney would assist Israel in attacking them,” Mr. Morris said.
“The Iranians have a real history of intervening in U.S. elections,” Mr. Morris said in an appearance Saturday on Fox News. “Bear in mind that in 1980, they did not release the hostages until after the election because they wanted to defeat [President Carter].”



On September 10, 2012, the amateurish, anti-Muslim YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims” had been on the Internet for three months with exactly seventeen views.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and an army of Obama surrogates conducted a media blitz blaming this obscure video no one had seen for the entire Middle East exploding on 9/11, including a “protest turned violent” at the Libyan consulate that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
We later learned that there was no protest.We later learned that intelligence on the ground linked it to a terrorist group within twenty-four hours.
We later learned that the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, was behind the attack. We now know it was not initially an attack, but an attempted kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens to use him as a pawn to get their beloved Blind Sheik back. What is most shocking, however, is that a source within the White House states that it was arranged as an October surprise by Barack Obama. Obama, in order to make the release of the Blind Sheik more palatable to the American people, and to boost his sagging approval ratings, arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap Ambassador Stevens. Then, days before the election, acting the part of the hero, planned to release the Blind Sheik in exchange for Ambassador Stevens.
The plan was for security to be minimal at the consulate, protected by only Libyan security guards who would melt away into the night at the appointed time.
The plan fell apart as two former SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, fought the kidnappers, leading to a firefight and subsequent fire, killing Stevens, Woods, Doherty, and also Sean Smith, a communications specialist.
Obama then had to create a cover-up so massive that it will go down in the history books until the end of time.


 Abu Sufian bin Qumu was captured and detained at Gitmo but was later released to Libya in 2007. So, I naturally started digging to find out why he was released and found that the Radical left-wing law firm "Center for Constitutional Rights" and "Covington and Burling" represented him under pressure from a handful of U.S. Senators. The leader of that Law firm in 2007 was none other than Eric Holder himself and the name of the main Senator that help lead the way was Senator Barack Obama." (from the Awakened fb page) Doug...thoughts?! I know nothing about this other than it had links attached on the page that it was posted...."




FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR                                                                                  by wp

Does Mitt Romney Want to Let People Die?

Have you noticed that The New York Times editorial page is becoming increasingly strident, increasingly emotional and increasingly irrational? Here is Paul Krugman in last Monday's column:
Does Mitt Romney Want to Let People Die?Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan…want to expose many Americans to financial insecurity, and let some of them die, so that a handful of already wealthy people can have a higher after-tax income.
No, that's not a misprint. The Republicans actually want to let some people die so that they can reward their rich friends. It's not an isolated comment either. Under the heading "Death by Ideology," Krugman actually lists all of the ways in which a President Romney would proceed to kill people. For example:
• Mr. Romney wants…to repeal ObamaCare and slash funding for Medicaid — actions that would take insurance away from some 45 million nonelderly Americans, causing thousands of people to suffer premature death.
• And their longer-term plans to convert Medicare into Vouchercare would deprive many seniors of adequate coverage, too, leading to still more unnecessary mortality.
• [M]any, and probably most, older Americans — would be left with inadequate insurance, insurance that exposed them to severe financial hardship if they got sick, sometimes left them unable to afford crucial care, and yes, sometimes led to their early death.
So what, you may ask, is the basis for all this vitriol? Krugman is writing about health care — a subject about which he has proved time and again he knows virtually nothing. On this occasion he lets loose with this bold assertion:
The overwhelming evidence, however, is that [health] insurance is indeed a lifesaver, and lack of insurance a killer…there's no real question that lack of insurance is responsible for thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of excess deaths of Americans each year.
Krugman claims to have reviewed the economics literature. If he has, then he is an embarrassment to the economics profession, despite his Nobel Prize. Then again, if he claims to have done so but really hasn't, I suppose that's equally embarrassing. (And remember, while all this is going on he is invariably calling everyone who disagrees with him a liar.)
Let me briefly set the record straight. Some studies actually have claimed that tens of thousands of people have died prematurely because they lacked health insurance. But these studies were not done by economists and were never accepted in any credible, peer-reviewed social science journal. They are basically junk science and they have been thoroughly discredited on several occasions, most notably by Richard Kronick, an economist who served in the Obama administration and actually helped design HillaryCare. Kronick writes that "there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States." I'll get to the children below.
In general, the economics literature has found no evidence that lack of health insurance has any substantial effect on mortality. Prof. June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, thoroughly investigated this issue and found that among Americans above 250% of poverty, lack of health insurance does not affect mortality. Below 250% of poverty, people without health insurance have an 11% higher probability of dying. But the probability drops to under 3% when you take into account demographic differences in the two populations. In fact, it is likely that the differential probability would disappear altogether with a complete inclusion of all the demographic differences between the two groups. (See her PowerPoint slides.)
The most recent evidence on children comes from a paper posted by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It looks at the effects of Medicaid on mortality and finds:
• Medicaid insurance leads to a substantial decline in mortality in older black children.
• It has no effect on white children.
• It has no effect on children — black or white — in states with the most Medicaid expansion.
The last finding is the most important. Krugman claims that by expanding Medicaid, ObamaCare will save thousands of lives and that by repealing ObamaCare, Romney would cause thousands of people to die. The evidence says otherwise.
Paul Krugman deserves the Nobel Prize for his clear thinking and advocacy of free trade. But on health care issues, he is a rank amateur.




FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR                                                                                      by wp

Is Obama Buying the Election With His Welfare Explosion?

With the unprecedented budget explosion of means-tested, welfare-related entitlements, does Team Obama think it can buy the election?
It's a cynical question. But I wouldn't put it past that cynical bunch.
Remember Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt's close aid? It was Hopkins who argued tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. Sound familiar? And if I'm not mistaken, the high-tax, anti-rich, big-spending, redistributionist FDR is one of Barack Obama's idols.
So let's take a look at some of the recent budget-explosion data points:
According to Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, means-tested welfare programs soared to over $1 trillion last year. The federal government accounted for $750 billion of that, while $250 billion came from the states, which leveraged federal payments into even larger expenses.
Between 2008 and 2011, federal welfare payments have jumped 32 percent. Food stamps have surged, with 71 percent more spending on the program in 2011 compared with 2008. Health payments, principally Medicaid, have climbed 37 percent.
By the way, it's not just the deep recession and weak recovery that's driving up these programs.  which started under George W. Bush, buIt's a substantial eligibility expansion,t has gone much further under President Obama.
In a larger budget context, reporter Jeffrey H. Anderson uses a Treasury Department study to chronicle the 7-Eleven presidency. In fiscal year 2012, ending Sept. 30, the government spent nearly $11 for every $7 of revenues taken in. The exact figures are $2.5 trillion in tax revenues and $3.5 trillion in spending. In other words, it spent 44 percent more than it had coming in.
Previous fiscal years look even worse: The government spent 56 percent more than revenues in fiscal year 2011 and 60 percent more in fiscal year 2010.
All in all, according to Anderson, the government under the Obama administration received $6.8 trillion in taxes and spent $10.7 trillion -- 56 percent more than it had available.
What's going on here is fiscal profligacy on the grandest scale in American history. And there are consequences.
Massive amounts of capital are being drained from the private sector and transferred to the government. This is one reason why American businesses have gone on a virtual capital-investment strike. Small businesses, in particular, can't get the capital being drained by Uncle Sam.
After four years of trillion-dollar deficits, both businesses and individuals have held back investment because they fear massive tax increases are on the way. That's a big reason why the so-called recovery has been so weak.
In addition, in our new entitlement nation, growing government dependency is ruining the very moral fiber and backbone of America's traditional work ethic. Increasingly, the feds are paying more to not work, rather than providing after-tax incentives to go back to work.
Mitt Romney has taken a lot of flak for raising the issue of growing government dependency. But however inartfully he may have expressed his view, his basic story is correct. The sheer volume of spending going on in this country is bringing us ever closer to bankruptcy.
And consider this: The spending explosion for means-tested welfare programs is outpacing spending on Social Security and Medicare, which are themselves veering toward bankruptcy.
I may be too cynical about Obama trying to buy the election with this entitlement explosion. Perhaps. But Obama wants to raise taxes in order to spend more on government unions and entitlement programs. It is redistribution, but it could be vote-buying, too.
To find out more about Lawrence Kudlow and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...