Pentagon Declines To Classify Ft. Hood Shootings As A Terrorist Attack…

If an al-Qaeda-inspired gunman screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he guns down 13 American soldiers is not a terrorist attack then what is?

Via Washington Times:

Already facing intense scrutiny for its shifting narrative about the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, the Pentagon now says it will not reclassify the Fort Hood shootings as a terrorist attack over concern about biasing the case against the gunman — an argument that is getting a mixed review from legal experts.

Late Friday, after 160 victims of the Fort Hood shooting called on the Pentagon to label the attack terrorism instead of workplace violence as it has for the past three years, the Department of Defense said it would not reclassify the attack.

In rejecting the victims outcry, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s spokesman cited concern that having the government weigh in could bias the case against Mr. Hasan. Maj. Hasan, 42 is awaiting trial and faces the death penalty if convicted.

When asked how Mr. Panetta plans to respond to the victims, his spokesman took a day and a half to respond, eventually emailing a statement Friday night.

Keep reading…

SOURCE: Weasel Zippers

And, just think… He’s their foreign policy genius.
Blowhard Joe Biden asked his audience this today:

“How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran? How many of you know someone who was injured in Iraq or Iran?”


Sure Joe, we all have several friends in the Ayatollah’s army.

 

 

Welfare spending jumps 32% in four years

Welfare spending has grown substantially over the past four years, reaching $746 billion in 2011 — or more than Social Security, basic defense spending or any other single chunk of the federal government — according to a new memo by the Congressional Research Service.

The steady rise in welfare spending, which covers more than 80 programs primarily designed to help low-income Americans, got a big boost from the 2009 stimulus and has grown, albeit somewhat more slowly, in 2010 and 2011. One reason is that more people are qualifying in the weak economy, but the federal government also has broadened eligibility so that more people qualify for programs.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who requested the Congressional Research Service report, said it underscores a fundamental shift in welfare, moving away from a Band-Aid and toward a more permanent crutch.

“No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty,” the Alabama conservative said. “Welfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence.”

Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent.

OBAMA PAWNS HIMSELF OFF AS “PROTECTOR OF LITTLE PEOPLE” BUT CONTINUES TO SCREW THEM

It’s amazing to me how many Americans continue to be duped by Barack Hussein Obama as he flat-out tells them he’s going to make it MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE for them to drive cars, ride airplanes, heat their homes in the winter or cool them in the summer.

You would think people would see stuff like this, where Obama sets aside huge tracts of land for “solar energy” and recall how EVERY SINGLE TIME Obama has fed money to these folks they’ve gone belly-up or moved the jobs overseas.

 

rocky-mountain-national-park-map

 

The Obama administration set aside a chunk of land bigger than Rocky Mountain National Park for future solar boondoggles.
CNS News reported, via Free Republic:

The Obama administration announced last week that it is setting aside 285,000 acres of public lands to be used for “commercial-scale solar development” – a total acreage amount that surpasses Rocky Mountain National Park, with 265,461 acres owned by the federal government.

“As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand domestic energy production, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today finalized a program for spurring development of solar energy on public lands in six western states,” the Department of Interior press release on the new project states.

“The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah by establishing solar energy zones with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those zones, and a process through which to consider additional zones and solar projects,” the press release states.

A fact sheet accompanying the press release states that the project will include “economic incentives” for development of solar power in the 17 “energy zones.” The fact sheet does not provide details about those incentives but labels them “strong incentives.”

The fact sheet also states that the project “sets a clear process that allows for development of well-sited projects on approximately 19 million acres outside the zones,” and that the environment of public lands is being protected by designating 78.6 million acres off-limits for solar development.

Or you would think that people would be paying attention to how Obama has been shutting down power plants, closing coal mines and prohibiting oil exploration in the US by cutting the number of drilling permits by 36%.

Romney brought that out and Obama again flat-out lied:

 

oil drill permits

 

According to the Bureau of Land Management, the current administration has actually decreased approval of drilling permits by 36 percent. Even under Bill Clinton, his administration increased the approval of drilling permits by 58 percent, and George W. Bush increased approval by 116 percent.


SOURCE:  Kickin & Screamin 

THIS IS WHAT “UNBIASED” MODERATION LOOKS LIKE

In case you missed it:

In the Ryan/Biden debates the “moderator” (what we know as a Kept-Whore liberal plant) interrupted Joe Biden 5 times. Paul Ryan? Three times as often.

In last night’s debate, the pattern re-emerges: Crowley interrupted Obama 9 times and Romney THREE TIMES AS MUCH MORE!!

Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

In the Vice-Presidential debate, Martha Raddatz, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Paul Ryan 15 times and Joe Biden only five.

 

Crowley made Raddatz look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

 

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

 

And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect:

 

1. She wouldn’t let him respond when Obama lied about the auto industry. First she called him Mr. Romney instead of governor, then protested, “there’ll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to… We have all these folks. I will let you absolutely… OK. Will – will – you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.” Romney never did get the chance to respond.

 

2. After the question asking whether gas prices as they stand now are the new normal, Obama got 2 chances to respond. When Romney asked for his second chance, Crowley shut him off by saying, “ … in the follow up, it doesn’t quite work like that. But I’m going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I’m going to.” She didn’t.

 

3. When discussing how he would deal with deductions, just as Romney was about to destroy Obama with statistics, Crowley jumped in to save her man not only by denying the value of statistics, but changing the narrative to say Romney’s numbers couldn’t possibly add up:

“And Governor, let’s – before we get into a vast array of who says – what study says what, if it shouldn’t add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn’t enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don’t add up, would you be willing to look again …”

 

4. When Romney was trying to make a point of Obama’s pension investing in China, Crowley cut him off by insinuating people were tired of him talking:

“Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They’ve been waiting for you. Make it short.”

Then she really tried to humiliate him with this: “If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.” She never asked Obama to sit down.

 

5. The infamous incident when she interrupted Romney’s claim about Obama’s refusal to call the Benghazi murders a terror attack:

“It – it – it – he did in fact, sir. So let me – let me call it an act of terror…

Prompted by Obama to say it a little louder, Crowley obliged:

“He – he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take – it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

 

6. 6. Just as egregiously, when the question was about assault weapons and Romney naturally started to discuss fast and furious, Crowley quickly shifted him away from that and turned it into an attack on Romney’s assault ban position:

 

“Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?’

 

The fact that Obama escaped all night long by lie after lie didn’t seem to disturb Crowley in the slightest. She had her shadowy agenda, and she stuck to it fiercely. Now it is our job to throw her out into the sun where every American can see exactly how dirty she is.

And, lastly, a no surprise, we find out democrats got more time overall in the debates:

If you want more time to get your message out in debates, it’s good to be a Democrat.

According to the CNN debate clock, President Obama spoke at greater length than Mitt Romney during both debates, as did Vice President Biden during his debate with Paul Ryan. In the first debate, Obama spoke for 3 minutes, 14 seconds more than Romney — which means he got 8 percent more talking time than Romney. In last night’s debate, Obama spoke for 4 minutes and 18 seconds longer than Romney, giving him 11 percent more talking time. Obama talked for 52 percent of the time when either man had the floor, while Romney talked for 47 percent.

During the vice presidential debate, the gap wasn’t as wide: Biden spoke for 1 minute, 22 seconds more than Ryan. Still, that gave Biden 3 percent more speaking time than Ryan.

SOURCE: FOX News