Time to Jet! Michelle Obama Plans a Lavish Girls’ Trip to China

Time to Jet! Michelle Obama Plans a Lavish Girls’ Trip to China

One thing the Obama’s have demonstrated during Barack Obama’s tenure as president is that they have a penchant for extravagant travel at the taxpayer’s expense. Many like to compare the multi-million dollar vacations that this First Family takes to the vacations that Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, took to his ranch in Crawford, TX. But, that is par for the course for Democrats, comparing apples to oranges. They like to compare time spent at a place set up to be able to work as if he was at the White House to vacations taken at lavish resorts. Heck, the Obamas have even been known to fly their dog on a separate plane to meet them on vacation!

While lecturing Americans on the importance of ‘everyone paying their fair share’, the Obamas lifestyle of the rich and famous makes one wonder if in making that statement they are actually referring to everyone paying their fair share for their life of luxury. In 2012, the UK Daily Mail reported that the lifestyle of Barack Obama and family costs the U.S. taxpayer 1.4 billion per year. Yes, that is billion with a B. And that figure doesn’t even include their vacations! Compare that to the $60 million England spends on a year basis for the entire royal family. But, what should you expect from a family who makes the taxpayer pay $100K a year for a handler for their dog. (Incidentally, they have since gotten a second dog, so that charge has most likely gone up. The Daily Caller also reported that Michelle Obama spent 42 days on vacation within the span of just one year!

Last year, Michelle Obama took her daughters and her mother on a taxpayer funded, lavish African safari at taxpayer expense. Her daughters were reportedly designated as ‘senior staffers’, though the White House contends that simply referred to where they were sitting on the plane. This should not be overshadowed by her trip to Spain. Maybe that’s the reason the Obamas go on so many vacations. They figure who is going to keep count if it simply seems like they are never home!

In continuing with her efforts to seemingly want to make the Jones’ keep up with her, the First Lady is planning yet another transcontinental vacation with the girls because the 17 day Hawaii vacation in December and the yearly ski trip to Vail in February just didn’t satisfy her travel quota. She must get in some more time in the sky before their annual, expensive trip to Martha’s Vineyard. So, Michelle is taking the girls, including her mother, on a weeklong trip to China. Rest assured, the First Lady demands nothing but the best! So, hold on to your wallets, she is about to raid them again.

The UK Daily Mail reports on this latest taxpayer funded

The president will not be joining his family on what will be the first lady’s first visit to the Asian economic powerhouse.

In an announcement Monday on the White House blog, the first lady says a China visit is important because it is the most populous country in the world, with more than 1.3 billion people, and is an important world actor.

Mrs. Obama will travel from March 19-26, spending several days in the capital of Beijing before stops in the central city of Xian and the southwestern city of Chengdu, the White House said. Her schedule includes a meeting with Peng Liyuan, the wife of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Of course, Michelle is trying to sell this as an ‘educational trip’ by encouraging students to follow her on social media. After all, she needs to make taxpayers feel like they are getting something out of the millions they spend so that she can be a jetsetter!

Mrs. Obama is encouraging American students to follow her trip on social media and the White House website, where she will post a daily travel blog. In preparation for the trip, she scheduled a visit Tuesday to a Washington charter elementary school with a Chinese-immersion, international baccalaureate program.

In her blog post, the first lady said countries today are no longer isolated and face many of the same challenges, whether it is to provide students with a good education, combat hunger, poverty and disease or address threats like climate change.

‘These issues affect every last one of us, so it’s critically important that young people like you learn about what’s going on not just here in America, but around the world,’ Mrs. Obama said. ‘Because when it comes to the challenges we face, soon, all of you will be leading the way.’

‘That’s why everywhere I go, whether it’s here in the U.S. or abroad, I meet with young people to hear about your challenges, hopes and dreams — and that’s what I’ll be doing in China as well,’ she said. ‘I’ll be focusing on the power and importance of education, both in my own life and in the lives of young people in both of our countries.’

Are you buying it?

More Evidence ObamaCare Adversely Affecting Workers: UNC System May Need To Cut Hours Of 6,500 Workers To Limit Compliance Burden

More Evidence ObamaCare Adversely Affecting Workers: UNC System May Need To Cut Hours Of 6,500 Workers To Limit Compliance Burden

If there are any Democrats out there reading this, there is one important question for you: still think that the ObamaCare law is a boon for the economy? After all, it was Obama and his band of merry libertards who told us, indeed made promises to these effects, that ObamaCare would not increase national healthcare spending. Now we have seen from independent and nonpartisan analysts that this is simply untrue. We were also promised that this law would not reduce the workforce, slow growth, or cut the level of hiring. Once again, independent analysts show that it will indeed do all of these things and more.

The actual impact of ObamaCare on the economy is going to be staggering. The Democrats told the country that this law would not increase premiums for individuals or small businesses. Once again, experts have determined that these claims and promises (even by the President himself) are untrue. They told us that the cuts to Medicare in order to fund ObamaCare would not impact seniors. Wrong again, according to independent nonpartisan analysts.

Remember how Nasty Nancy Pelosi even promised us that ObamaCare was really a jobs bill? Yep, she told us that this law would create approximately 4 million new jobs. She even went so far as to promise us that 400,000 of them would be created “almost immediately.” Once again, these were all lies. Now, there is more news that shows just how ObamaCare might be impacting the job market through reduced worker hours. Listen to this from Campus Reform:

“ObamaCare could cost the University of Carolina (UNC) system as much as $47 million per year starting in 2015—and the universities may cut hours and jobs to comply, Campus Reform has learned. The Affordable Care Act requires the system to start providing insurance for 8,586 non-permanent employees who work more than 30 hours per week—but UNC is considering just cutting their hours to avoid having to pay for the insurance, Marty Kotis, a member of the UNC Board of Governors’ Budget and Finance Committee, writes on his blog, the Greensboro Observer. Kotis told Campus Reform that UNC…said universities will ‘likely’ cut the hours of 75 percent of eligible employees in order to lower the cost of complying with the mandate to between $11-$22 million.”

In plain English, ObamaCare is simply not affordable to most businesses, even a large university system. Businesses are going to be increasingly facing two options. They could reduce the hours of their workers in order to shave a lot of money off the compliance costs. Or, they could simply reduce the number of employees entirely. It is amazing how this law that was once considered to be a ‘jobs bill’ is now clearly responsible for the loss of a number of jobs. Not to mention the fact that it is certainly not creating any new jobs.

No wonder why support for ObamaCare in the state of North Carolina is underwater by 22 percentage points. Could this be why Democratic Senator Kay Hagan (from North Carolina) and others who have routinely banged the drums for ObamaCare are running scared? After all, we need to remember that this horrendous law was passed entirely on the backs of Democrats. Not a single Republican voted for this law…and almost 100% of the Democrats did.

What do YOU think? Is the response taken by the UNC system going to be repeated by many other businesses as we move closer to implementation of the business mandate? How would you react in their position? Will workers end up losing jobs? Working less hours?

You Knew It was Coming: Obama’s Feckless Foreign Policy Is All Bush’s Fault

You Knew It was Coming: Obama’s Feckless Foreign Policy Is All Bush’s Fault

You knew it was coming, didn’t you? Of course you did, so here it is:

Barack Obama’s spineless, feckless and scattershot foreign policy is all George W. Bush’s fault.

Yup. That’s the line that Rachel Maddow is using as she tours the mainstream media promoting her new propaganda “documentary” called “Why We Did It,” all about the run-up to the Iraq war.

On Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show (Mitchell used to be a respected journalist, by the way), Maddow said the world’s problems – and Obama’s inability to deal with them – are all the fault of a president who left office more than 5 years ago.

“The decisions of our generation on national security are determined more than anything by what the George W. Bush administration did with that nine-year war in Iraq and, alongside it, a 13-year war in Afghanistan that’s still going on,” she told Mitchell. “And the American people are against those wars. Those are the determinative constraints for our thinking about everything, from Crimea, to Syria, to what the overall size of the U.S. military is.”

Yup. Obama’s meaningless “red line” in Syria, his meaningless warnings to Russia, it’s not his fault.

Mitchell, who again, used to be a respected journalist before the liberal MSNBC talons were sunk into her, served as her cheerleader, agreeing with everything she said.

“And that, some would argue, not me, but some of the critics are saying that has influenced the way foreign leaders and perhaps [Russian President Vladimir] Putin view [President Barack Obama],” Mitchell said.

What a load of crap. Like him or not, President Bush’s diplomatic and foreign-policy spine was not made of lukewarm Jell-O. His red lines were exactly that – red lines. Not a soft, pastel rainbow.

Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies at Wednesday’s oversight hearing

Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies at Wednesday’s oversight hearing

Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies openly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, according to her attorney.

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa announced Sunday that Lerner will testify at Wednesday’s hearing, but Lerner’s attorney Bill Taylor said that Lerner will seek to continue invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and will also seek a one-week delay of her testimony.

Oversight members are reportedly open to granting Lerner a one-week delay if she petitions for one in person at Wednesday’s hearing. The delay would allow Lerner’s lawyers to continue negotiating for immunity, which they have been doing since at least September.

“I advised the staff that calling Ms. Lerner knowing that she will assert her rights was not only improper but dangerous. Ms. Lerner has been the subject of numerous threats on her life and safety, and on the life and safety of her family. I left with the staff recent evidence of those threats,” said Taylor in a letter to Issa.

But Oversight previously determined that Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights when she made a statement attesting to her innocence at a May 2013 hearing.

Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Jason Chaffetz, both Oversight members, said recently that they were considering holding Lerner in contempt of Congress if she does not testify.

Issa said on the subject, ”We want her to come back and answer questions. We’ll see on contempt.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/lois-lerner-fears-for-her-life-if-she-testifies-at-wednesdays-oversight-hearing/#ixzz2v2ZSgNZw

Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea…and other facts you didn’t know

Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea...and other facts you didn’t know

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement.

Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia’s invasion of Crimea?”

It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.

Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that the country’s military “strictly executes the agreements, which stipulate the Russian fleet’s presence in Ukraine, and follows the stance and claims coming from the legitimate authority in Ukraine and in this case the legitimate authority of the Autonomous Republic Crimea as well.”

The Black Sea Fleet has been disputed between Russia and Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union back in 1991.

In 1997, the sides finally managed to find common ground and signed three agreements determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea.

Russia has received 81.7 per cent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government a compensation of US$526.5 million.

Moscow also annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequency resources, and for the environmental impact caused by the Black Sea Fleet’s operations.

According to the initial agreement, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was to stay in Crimea until 2017, but the deal was later prolonged for another 25 years.

The 1997 deal allows the Russian navy to have up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on Ukrainian territory.

In compliance with those accords, there are currently five Russian naval units stationed in the port city of Sevastopol in the Crimean peninsula:

The 30th Surface Ship Division formed by the 11th Antisubmarine Ship Brigade, which includes the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship guard missile cruiser Moskva as well as Kerch, Ochakov, Smetlivy, Ladny, and Pytlivy vessels, and the 197th Landing Ship Brigade, consisting of seven large amphibious vessels;

The 41st Missile Boat Brigade, which includes the 166th Fast Attack Craft Division, consisting of Bora and Samum hovercrafts as well as small missile ships Mirazh and Shtil, and 295th missile Boat Division;

The 247th Separate Submarine Division, consisting of two diesel submarines – B-871 Alrosa and B-380 Svyatoy Knyaz Georgy;

The 68th Harbor Defense Ship Brigade formed by the 400th Antisubmarine Ship Battalion of four vessels and 418 Mine Hunting Ship Division, which consist of four ships as well;

The 422nd Separate Hydrographic Ship Division, which includes Cheleken, Stvor, Donuzlav and GS-402 survey vessels as well as a group of hydrographic boats.

Besides the naval units, Moscow also has two airbases in Crimea, which are situated in the towns of Kacha and Gvardeysky.

The Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.

Several other coastal units of the Black Sea Fleet are located in Russia’s Krasnodar Region, including the 11th Separate Coastal Missile Brigade in Anapa, the 382th Separate Marine Battalion, and a naval reconnaissance station in Temryuk.

Last week, Russia’s Federation Council unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to send the country’s military forces to Ukraine to ensure peace and order in the region “until the socio-political situation in the country is stabilized.”

However, the final say about deploying troops lies with Putin, who hasn’t yet made such a decision, stressing that deploying military force would be a last resort.

Authorities in the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea – where more than half the population is Russian – requested Moscow’s assistance after the self-proclaimed government in Kiev introduced a law abolishing the use of languages other than Ukrainian in official circumstances.

Navy cuts F-35 order nearly in half

Navy cuts F-35 order nearly in half

As the United States prepares plans to downsize its military, the Navy is set to order fewer Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets than previously expected over the next five years.

Citing an unnamed defense official, Reuters reported that beginning in the 2015 fiscal year, the Navy will request the purchase of 36 F-35C fighter jets, which are designed to land on aircraft carriers. That’s nearly half as many as the 69 originally projected.

The Air Force, meanwhile, is postponing its own request for four F-35A jets for one year. Beginning in 2016, however, it remains on track to move forward with its purchases as planned, an arrangement that will see the Air Force purchase about 238 jets total.

The Marine Corps stands out as the sole player committed to its original plan, still expected to request 69 F-35B jets over five years. These are scheduled to be combat ready and in use by mid-2015.

According to Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale, the move to purchase fewer jets does not indicate that the military is underwhelmed with the jet’s performance capability, but rather it was based primarily on budgetary considerations. Defense officials told Reuters that the plan is still to purchase a total of 2,443 F-35s over the next few years.

As RT has reported in the past, however, the F-35 project has suffered from some significant obstacles, notably price. The fleet of 2,443 fighter jets is expected to cost $392 billion, a 68 percent increase over original projections from back in 2001. According to the Washington Post, this has led the military to cut back on the number of planes it first expected to purchase by more than 400. Additionally, the Post noted statements by the Pentagon’s chief tester, who in January said the jet “wasn’t sufficiently reliable in training flights last year.”

Other performance and manufacturing setbacks have also hobbled the program as it unfolded. Last year, a Pentagon report found issues with the jet’s internal software, while leaked budget review documents suggested some within the government would consider cancelling the project.

Still, the military has continued to reiterate its confidence in the program’s ultimate success.

“The basic design of the F-35 is sound, and test results underscore our confidence in the ultimate performance that the United States and its international partners and allies value so highly,” Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who heads the F-35 project, said last year. “Of course, we recognize risks still exist in the program, but they are understood and manageable.”

The decision to purchase fewer jets also comes amid reports that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is planning an overhaul of the US armed forces in order to fulfill President Obama’s goals of scaling back overseas military operations while remaining capable of waging war when necessary. Under Hagel’s proposal, US troop levels would fall somewhere between 440,000 and 450,000, the lowest level scene since World War II.

According to Reuters, the sequester could also come back to affect the F-35 project. Just last week, Hagel said that if Congress does not revoke or somehow deal with the automatic cuts scheduled for the 2016 fiscal year even fewer jets may be bought.

Molon Labe: Connecticut Gun Group Issues Ultimatum to Government

Molon Labe: Connecticut Gun Group Issues Ultimatum to Government

Either enforce gun ban or repeal law

Paul Joseph Watson
March 4, 2014

After gun owners in Connecticut revolted against a gun control law by refusing to register their assault rifles and high capacity magazines, one Second Amendment group is calling on the government to either enforce gun confiscation or repeal the law in full.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, Connecticut passed a law which banned ammunition magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. Residents who had acquired such magazines before the law came into effect were mandated to register them with state police by January 1, 2014. The law also banned assault rifles manufactured after 1994, requiring them to be declared to authorities.

Weeks after the deadline expired, authorities revealed that just 50,016 assault weapons and 38,290 ammunition magazines had been registered, meaning that some 320,000 assault rifles and around 2.4 million high capacity magazines were not declared.

Now the Second Amendment organization Connecticut Carry is calling on authorities to “enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.”

“State officials look down the barrel of the laws that they created, and it is very probably that they now tremble as they rethink the extremity of their folly. Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or else repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety,” states the group’s press release.

In calling the state’s bluff, gun owners are setting the stage for a showdown that could sink the draconian law and set the precedent for the rest of the country.

“If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence,” adds the press release.

Last month it emerged that Connecticut residents who failed to register their assault weapons or high capacity magazines before the January 1 deadline had received letters from CT State Police ordering them to either make their guns and ammo inoperable, sell them to a licensed dealer, or turn them in at a local police station.

When one woman asked Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance if police would engage in door to door gun confiscations during a phone call, Vance labeled her “anti-American.”

“I want to know, if it comes down to it, will the police go to my home if my husband refuses to give up a weapon that was formerly legal and now has been made illegal by a corrupt legislature?” she asked. “Will the police actually go to my home and threaten my family, ’cause I’m scared to death?”

“Ma’am, it sounds like you’re anti-American, it sounds like you’re anti-law. I can’t answer your question,” Lt. Vance answered.

When the woman reminded Vance that he was a public servant, he churlishly shot back, “I’m the master, Ma’am, I’m the master.”

Russia: We Won’t Repay the Bankers if U.S. Imposes Sanctions

Russia may also dump the dollar if sanctions move forward

Kurt Nimmo
March 4, 2014

A Kremlin economist, Sergei Glazyev, told RIA Novosti the Russian government may not repay loans owed to the financial cartel if the United States imposes sanctions on the country in response to the Crimea intervention.

EU, led by Germany, is backing off the idea of sanctions.

“If sanctions are applied against state structures, we will be forced to recognize the impossibility of repayment of the loans that the US banks gave to the Russian structures. Indeed, sanctions are a double-edged weapon, and if the US chooses to freeze our assets, then our equities and liabilities in dollars will also be frozen. This means that our banks and businesses will not return the loans to American partners,” he said.

Additionally, Glazyev said, Russia would likely dump the dollar to reduce its dependence on the U.S. financial system and switch to other currencies. “We have wonderful economic and trade relations with our Southern and Eastern partners,” he said. “We will find a way not just to eliminate our dependence on the U.S. but also profit from these sanctions.”

In addition to battering the banking system, Russia has the ability to inflict serious economic damage on Europe. As noted in a report issued by the Capital Economics research group, Russia is a major supplier of oil to Germany, the Netherlands, and “Western Europe generally.” The market share of the Russian gas giant Gazprom is expected to grow in the years ahead.

The Obama administration has vacillated on sanctions, although Obama is reportedly considering issuing an Executive Order without the consent of Congress. The administration has so far taken largely token steps, including suspending preparations for the annual G8 summit scheduled for Sochi in June. Obama has also nixed trade and energy talks with Russia and has withdrawn the American delegation for the Paralympics in Sochi.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters during a conference call on Monday the U.S. has a number of options available if the situation in Ukraine escalates. “At this point, we are not just considering sanctions. Given the actions Russia is taking, it is likely we will put those in place and we are preparing that,” Psaki said.

A document leaked in the UK suggests ministers there are second guessing sanctions due in large part to the risk of losing Russian investment in the country. The government briefing document photographed as an adviser carried it on Monday said Britain “should not support, for now, trade sanctions… or close London’s financial center to Russians.” It would, instead, support visa restrictions and travel bans.

Arizona Senator McCain insists on sanctions despite economic damage.

Sanctions imposed by the United States will need the support of Britain and Europe. “Unilateral U.S. sanctions against Russia are not going to have much an effect if Europe remains a haven for Russian banks and Russian oligarchs to stash and invest their money,” said Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. “If the United States shuts its economic doors to Russia and Europe leaves its doors open, there won’t be much change in behavior from Moscow,” he said.

U.S. lawmakers have proposed an aggressive round of sanctions against Russian banks. Congress also wants to freeze the assets of Russian public institutions and private investors. In addition to sanctions on Russia, lawmakers are looking at generous loans for the coup regime in Kyiv that overthrew the elected government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

This article was posted: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 9:31 am