Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'obama'.
Found 8 results
-
This little boy captured the heart of President Obama, so he left a comment on the picture in the hope that the child and his father would see it US President Obama was so moved by this post on popular Facebook page Humans of New York that he took time from his schedule to write a comment. The post features an Iranian father and son, with the dad praising his little boy for being a 'humanitarian'. Humans of New York Facebook page posted “Today’s his tenth birthday. He’s a very emotional young man. He likes to solve other people’s problems. One time when he was five years old, he came with me to the store and we bought two pounds of fresh apricots. I let him carry the bag home. He walked a little bit behind me the entire way. After awhile, I asked him to hand me an apricot. ‘I can’t,’ he said. ‘I’ve given them all away.’ I knew then that I was raising a humanitarian.” (Tabriz, Iran) Many people were touched by the post, and it has been shared over 30,000 times at the time of writing, featuring comments from people all around the world. President Obama was one such person, leaving a comment praising the child. He wrote: When posts by the White House are signed "bo" it signals that they have been written by the President, and not his social media team. The President Of The United States Of America: Barack Obama. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/- 2 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- comment
- heartwarming
- (and 1 more)
-
This is going to be a Classic! Here is the Full Video that it came from http://youtu.be/mLhXarmtndQ -
So here we go. The word on the street is that the team Joe Biden is spearheading has agreed to bring Obama ideas on using executive orders to curb mass shootings with assault rifles. Not mass killings... mass shootings with assault rifles. http://www.cnn.com/2...control-battle/ What this means essentially is that nowadays the government of the U.S. thinks for some reason we work for them instead of the other way around. The 2nd Amendment is there so we can protect our homes and families. And also to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. It is stated very clearly in our Constitution that this right in particular "Shall not be infringed." And what that means is the government has no authority to control or regulate our firearms in any way. The same government who flouridates the U.S. drinking water are the same guys that worry for your safety because there are Americans with weapons everywhere? Hard to believe. It's actually unbelievable. The same government who started a war in the middle east that's killed thousands and thousands of people over 10 years now are the same who are compassionate? Give me a break. There's one reason for trying to take our rights away. And that is Tyranny. Tyranny leads to oppression. And that's how dictators are made (dictatorships aren't always just one person). I hope that if this is the route that they're going to try and take with us... that they are prepared to be shown that the American people will surely be underestimated because we are armed millions strong. Let them come and try to take them from us. -
So here we go. The word on the street is that the team Joe Biden is spearheading has agreed to bring Obama ideas on using executive orders to curb mass shootings with assault rifles. Not mass killings... mass shootings with assault rifles. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/ What this means essentially is that nowadays the government of the U.S. thinks for some reason we work for them instead of the other way around. The 2nd Amendment is there so we can protect our homes and families. And also to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. It is stated very clearly in our Constitution that this right in particular "Shall not be infringed." And what that means is the government has no authority to control or regulate our firearms in any way. The same government who flouridates the U.S. drinking water are the same guys that worry for your safety because there are Americans with weapons everywhere? Hard to believe. It's actually unbelievable. The same government who started a war in the middle east that's killed thousands and thousands of people over 10 years now are the same who are compassionate? Give me a break. There's one reason for trying to take our rights away. And that is Tyranny. Tyranny leads to oppression. And that's how dictators are made (dictatorships aren't always just one person). I hope that if this is the route that they're going to try and take with us... that they are prepared to be shown that the American people will surely be underestimated because we are armed millions strong. Let them come and try to take them from us.
-
President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his PayPal account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Florida Marine Corp Soldier (We are not posting his name for obvious reasons) According to Military.com, as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to received the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’ must be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay. The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012. A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was: *Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; *On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; *Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or *On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. The last bullet point speaks volumes as to the sheer stupidity of this measure. The whole point of going to Afghanistan and Iraq was for combat operations- Afghanistan still is a hostile warzone, and both U.S. and NATO forces continue to suffer losses in and out of combat hot zones. Insurgent attacks have accured throughout areas that have been deemed ‘safe’, and in areas where hostilities were not forseen. http://patdollard.co...for-u-s-troops/ I must say, as a soldier myself, you should be entilted to the pay reguardless if you are shot at in a day or not. The indirect fire that is going off as well as the basic danger of just being on the fob. As well, if you are stationed in what is to be called a "safe zone" you will not receive the combat pay. Even though the safe zones still have a risk of insurgent activity and IED's. They keep taking more and more money away from the people who risk the most for the nation and its the damn desk SOB that are making this decision. How hard is it to sit behind a desk and ruin the lives of everyone else?
-
In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers. The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon. Gertz added: The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017. Not everybody is happy with the plan, however. Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels." "According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048," Gertz wrote. Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone. Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military - but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention. “Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said. John Hayward of Human Events adds: Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,” according to critics. There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans’ organizations, including the VFW, which has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.” Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel - who are not unionized - and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions. Gertz wrote: A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military. “We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.” The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said. At least one Congressman is standing with the military on this issue. “We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,” he added. McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan "a breach of faith." The Beacon also noted the curious timing of the plan, which is set to begin next year - after the 2012 elections. Critics say this is designed so as not to upset military voters. http://m.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers They cut more and more from military and yet the civilian employees working with the military are making more money and better bennefits. How much more are they gonna try and take? -
(AP) HONOLULU — President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran. In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country. Administration officials said Mr. Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability. "Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Mr. Obama said in the signing statement. Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, President Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent. Mr. Obama's signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans' constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes. Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals. The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al Qaeda or "associated forces" and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents. "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," President Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases. For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau's ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn't clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away. Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack. The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products. Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran. The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil. The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies. In response to the threatened penalties, Iran warned this past week that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Persian Gulf waterway. U.S. officials say that while they take all threats from Iran seriously, they view this latest warning as little more than saber rattling because disrupting the waterway would harm Iran's economy. The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices. President Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family. ---- This is saying that Obama has allowed martial law basically and citizens are allowed to be persecuted by military under president's command. They say Obama will not use this power but Presidents to come will.. This Bill was passed on December 31, 2011 http://www.cbsnews.c...h-reservations/ heres the source http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hr1540enr.pdf and here's the bill couple other sites on the bill: http://www.thenewame...on-act-into-law http://www.naturalne...detainment.html -
So this is funny. Dont know how many have seen it but they are hysterical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qv7k2_lc0M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZpE5o9NsEk&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixesdXN2eDA&feature=relmfu