Looks like Blue Mountain had more than one US contract...

[4est_4est_Gump]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Unknown thieves stole a "large amount" of newly-designed $100 bills bound for a Federal Reserve facility in New Jersey on Thursday, the FBI said.

Frank Burton, Jr., spokesman for the FBI's Philadelphia division, said the theft occurred at some point between when the shipment of bills landed at the Philadelphia airport on a commercial flight from Dallas at 10:20 Thursday morning, and when the shipment reached its New Jersey destination around 2:00 p.m., when the courier service transporting the bills reported some missing.

Burton declined to comment on the amount taken, but said it was substantial.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/12/news/economy/100-bill-theft/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Blue Mountain, the Camarthen firm that won a $387,000 (£241,000) one year contract from the US State Department to protect the compound in May, sent just one British employee, recruited from the celebrity bodyguard circuit, to oversee the work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...onsulate-contract-with-little-experience.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It used to depend upon the meaning of "is."


Now it depends on the meaning of "we."

The October Surprise May Be Libya
John Fund, NRO
October 15, 2012

What if we’ve already had an October surprise in this campaign, in September, and the mainstream media are failing to follow up? An issue becomes a real issue only if enough people give it the attention it’s due.

Many people in the diplomatic and intelligence communities say that the Obama administration, behind the scenes, is in complete disarray in the aftermath of al-Qaeda’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. That tension burst into the open during last Thursday’s debate, when Vice President Joe Biden said the administration “did not know” that U.S. personnel in Libya had made repeated requests for more security before the September 11 attack. “We did not know they wanted more security there,” Biden claimed.

That directly contradicted sworn testimony given by several officials just the day before, during a House Oversight Committee hearing. Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, who led a 16-member security team in Libya for six months, testified: “We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.” Wood’s team was ordered by the State Department to leave Libya in August, about a month before the terrorist assault.

After the debate, Obama-administration officials knew that Biden’s statement was untenable, so they explained that by “we” — the “we” who were in the dark about security concerns — Biden meant only two people: himself and President Obama. It’s a parsing of words worthy of Bill Clinton’s famous “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

It’s not the first time that the intelligence community has been thrown under the bus by an administration trying to paper over a foreign-policy failure, but Biden’s move was breathtaking in its brazenness. In front of tens of millions, he squarely blamed the intelligence officials for the administration’s pathetic, erroneous claim that an anti-Islam video had sparked spontaneous protests that later turned violent at the Libyan consulate.

“The intelligence community told us that,” Biden said during the debate. “As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”

But a former senior intelligence official scoffed at that assertion. “The administration designated Benghazi as a terrorist attack within 24 hours while at the same time declaring the attack was a ‘spontaneous protest’ that ‘spun out of control,’” he told me. “They can’t get their story straight, so the cover-up is deepening.” Even some Democratic senators have been pressing for immediate hearings on Libya, but Majority Leader Harry Reid has blocked them, the official added. Is the need to discover problems with U.S. security taking a back seat to electoral politics?

On CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Republican senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said he knows for a fact that the administration was told within 24 hours of the incident that it was al-Qaeda operatives who carried it out. “They’re trying to sell a narrative, quite frankly, that the Mideast, the wars are receding, and al-Qaeda’s been dismantled,” Graham said. “And to admit that our embassy was attacked by al-Qaeda operatives and [that] Libya ‘leading from behind’ didn’t work, I think undercuts that narrative. They never believed the media would investigate. Congress was out of session, and this caught up with them.”

What does the administration have left?

Wag the Dog in Iran?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Barack Obama and the Democrats have been blindsided by not one but two October surprises. The first actually occurred in September: the Al Qaeda-sponsored attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the second: Obama's abysmal performance in the first presidential debate.

During the Obama years, the international scene has been led by arguably the most incompetent and easily intimidated leaders of the past twenty plus years. At the front of the line has been Barack Obama. If he is re-elected, combined with a continuation of the deferential foreign policy pursued in his first term, the United States will no longer be the leader of the free world but will instead be just another moribund quasi-socialist member of the global community watching the global ascendancy of China and Russia.

If Barack Obama remains in office, the Middle East, as it is now constituted, will in due course experience a catastrophic regional conflict. There will also be increased terrorist attacks on America and its interests abroad, as there is absolute disdain for the United States and Obama's lack of leadership -- a reality fully exposed over the past two months.

Regardless of whether Obama is re-elected, the financial dilemma in Europe will continue on and will fester until the European Union and the Eurozone collapses, as the egocentrics in charge remain adamant in their failed strategy of bailouts, money creation and subsidies -- a collapse that will trigger another world-wide financial crisis and recession, if the United States is not able to mitigate its debt dilemma and foster substantial economic growth. If Obama does win on November 6th, the United States will be unable, because of what will be an avalanche of regulations, taxes and debased currency, to weather the storm, as the nation will be led by someone who has no idea of what to do except to stubbornly adhere to failed socialist doctrine.

However, and most important, are the overwhelming character flaws of Barack Obama: his inability to admit a mistake and a lack of integrity. As in the case of the Libyan debacle, where it appears the first impulse was to lie and obfuscate despite the fact that the White House knew within 24 hours the consulate attack was a terrorist act, Obama attempted to cover-up his failures for his own personal benefit. And as revealed numerous times during his presidency, Obama has demagogued countless issues and he has vehemently, and often falsely, denigrated whomever would stand in his way. He has shown himself to be untrustworthy and dishonest to achieve his goals. Further he has surrounded himself with the like-minded willing to be accomplices to this mindset. This is not the kind of person who should be in the White House, particularly at this time in the nation's history.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/barack_obamas_october_surprises.html#ixzz29MShOKZm

 

[miles]

However, and most important, are the overwhelming character flaws of Barack Obama: his inability to admit a mistake and a lack of integrity. As in the case of the Libyan debacle, where it appears the first impulse was to lie and obfuscate despite the fact that the White House knew within 24 hours the consulate attack was a terrorist act, Obama attempted to cover-up his failures for his own personal benefit. And as revealed numerous times during his presidency, Obama has demagogued countless issues and he has vehemently, and often falsely, denigrated whomever would stand in his way. He has shown himself to be untrustworthy and dishonest to achieve his goals. Further he has surrounded himself with the like-minded willing to be accomplices to this mindset. This is not the kind of person who should be in the White House, particularly at this time in the nation's history.

Even more disturbing is that tens of millions of voters have no problem with his lack of character. They excuse it by saying it isn't true or all politicians lie.

Do these same people excuse their children's poor behavior by saying all kids do it? Probably.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Must read internet:

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-obama-breaking-point/?singlepage=true

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes mom; if everyone else was jumping off the bridge, I surely would not want to be the last one.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Biden's Other Big Debate Lie
DAVID CATRON, The American SPectator
10.15.12

His lie about Obamacare's contraception mandate may be worse than his Benghazi whopper.

Most of the criticism aimed at Joe Biden relating to his disgraceful performance in last Thursday's VP debate has related to his transparent lie about what the Obama administration knew about the September 11 terrorist attack on our Benghazi consulate. But that was by no means the only whopper of consequence he told during the debate. Another lie that may cause nearly as much damage to his boss's re-election prospects involves the one he told about Obamacare's contraception mandate. Whereas his tale about the September 11 attack thwarted the MSM's attempt to bury the Benghazi story, what he said about the contraception mandate actually disinterred a story they thought they had safely deep-sixed until after the election.

Toward the end of the debate, the candidates were asked to discuss "what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion." As part of his response, Paul Ryan pointed out that the Obama administration is using Obamacare to assault our religious liberties: "They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals." He was, of course, referring to the infamous HHS edict requiring employers to provide insurance that pays for abortion drugs, contraception, and sterilization. Predictably, Ryan's comment elicited one of the 85 interruptions whereby America's crazy uncle transformed the debate into a 90-minute exhibition of boorish bluster and balderdash.

When Ryan was permitted to finish, Biden weighed in on the issue with characteristic mendacity: "With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact." This claim obviously bears no resemblance to "fact." As the Heritage Foundation promptly pointed out, "The real 'fact' about the anti-conscience mandate is that it applies to almost all employers --including many religious organizations such as hospitals and social service providers."

And the response to Biden's bald-faced lie was not limited to dispassionate analysis by conservative think tanks. On October 12, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a statement denouncing the VP's deceptive comments in no uncertain terms. The statement specifically referred to the Catholic organizations cited by Biden himself and used them as evidence that his words were not remotely factual: "The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain 'religious employers.' That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to 'Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,' or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served."

 

[miles]

Must read internet:

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-obama-breaking-point/?singlepage=true

Excellent piece. It is, of course, racist.

 

[RobDownSouth]

However, and most important, are the overwhelming character flaws of Barack Obama: his inability to admit a mistake and a lack of integrity. As in the case of the Libyan debacle, where it appears the first impulse was to lie and obfuscate despite the fact that the White House knew within 24 hours the consulate attack was a terrorist act, Obama attempted to cover-up his failures for his own personal benefit. And as revealed numerous times during his presidency, Obama has demagogued countless issues and he has vehemently, and often falsely, denigrated whomever would stand in his way. He has shown himself to be untrustworthy and dishonest to achieve his goals. Further he has surrounded himself with the like-minded willing to be accomplices to this mindset. This is not the kind of person who should be in the White House, particularly at this time in the nation's history.

Even more disturbing is that tens of millions of voters have no problem with his lack of character. They excuse it by saying it isn't true or all politicians lie.

Do these same people excuse their children's poor behavior by saying all kids do it? Probably.

Gee, Miles Ben Zonah, why don't you start another thread bashing President Obama to show your displeasure.

It would be your 229th such thread, perhaps people didn't get your message from the previous 228.

I noticed you were on here ranting at 3 a.m., and now again at 7 a.m. .... I know your "eternal vigilance" against President Obama takes precedence in your life, but is everything okay at home?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Excellent piece. It is, of course, racist.

It is most certainly not the desired affirmative action of thought that the Left has long fought so hard for in the name of diversity...

 

[miles]

It is most certainly not the desired affirmative action of thought that the Left has long fought so hard for in the name of diversity...

It doesn't matter. They won't read it anyway. It's full of facts and logic. What abut feelings?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Cannot go outside of the consensus and leave the comfort zone.


You might end up switching teams like that dumbass A_J...

 

[mercury14]

I agree, Biden wasn't being straight. The exemption to the mandate is watered-down. But there simply shouldn't be an exemption at all. Health insurance is regulated and if Catholic groups don't like it then they can give employees money to buy their own insurance in an exchange.

In this sense Biden was accurate.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

More good news for ol' Uncle Joe...

Bombmaker’s Bonus: A Nuclear Jalopy Will Do

NOW THE BAD—VERY BAD—NEWS: You do not need a full U.S. weapons-grade fuel to build a bomb. Less than 20 percent-enriched uranium suffices. In 1962 the United States tested a uranium bomb at its Nevada underground test site, and obtained a nuclear explosion with fuel enriched somewhat short of 20 percent (the exact figure remains classified). It was, in the parlance, suboptimal. Such a bomb would cause less devastation and kill fewer people than a fully enriched bomb.

Also, a weapon fueled with highly enriched uranium but of crude design may “predetonate,” thus greatly reducing its explosive yield. Supercritical chain reactions in uranium typically at least double with each fission. Think of the parable about the king who offers a peasant serial doublings of wheat stalks for each square on a chessboard—one stalk of wheat on square one, two on square two, four on square three, etc. Before reaching 64 doublings the kingdom goes broke; the final squares are never covered, as there is no wheat left with which to do so. The difference in the nuclear case is that doublings go past the 64th square. Exponential progressions look like the famed “hockey stick” curve, which rockets upward at an ever-increasing rate.

In an 84-doubling sequence not uncommon in a fission weapon, after 70 doublings, only 1 percent of the energy will have been released. After 80 doublings, only 5 percent will have been released, and after 83 doublings, only 50 percent. North Korea’s early tests fell far short of the Hiroshima bomb in yield, due to pre-detonation. A primitive weapon releases far less energy than a well-engineered one.

But a low-enriched or crudely designed bomb could still could inflict vast damage. Consider the consequences wrought by conventional explosives: The 1,336-pound truck bomb that exploded in a garage of the World Trade Center in 1993, had it been more carefully placed a few yards away, would have toppled one tower into the other, killing many tens of thousands. The much bigger 1995 Oklahoma City bomb, which destroyed a large federal building and killed 168 people, used two and a half tons of conventional explosives. A nuclear bomb that unleashes just 1 percent of the 14 kilotons of energy released at Hiroshima would be the equivalent of 140 tons of TNT—200 times the explosive energy of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb.

A “puny” A-bomb (like that detonated in North Korea’s 2006 plutonium test, for example) could easily be equivalent to a few hundred tons of high explosives. Such a primitive device would embarrass any self-respecting bomb designer, but elegance is not a terrorist’s criterion. Terrorists may find a nuclear jalopy more useful to their purposes than the search for a nuclear Ferrari.

A Growing Threat

ONCE ONE REALIZES THE IMPLICATIONS of the metrics presented, and contemplates nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamists, it becomes clear that the nuclear threat to civilization is growing:

• Commercial nuclear power puts a country near a weapons capability.

• Going from commercial to weapon status takes far less time than going from non-nuclear to commercial.

• A crude design can rapidly be assembled, with no need to be tested.

So American policymakers—and the population as well—should understand that nuclear capability can be acquired by hostile powers leveraging off a commercial program, upon intent formed on the spur of the moment, and with a path to rapidly attain weapon status once all necessary materials are in place. Which makes denying access to critical materials the front line of defense against proliferation by America’s enemies.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/15/the-deadly-arithmetic-of-nucle

 

[Ishmael]

More good news for ol' Uncle Joe...


http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/15/the-deadly-arithmetic-of-nucle

The 'threat assessment' wonks have been wringing their hands over a 'suitcase from Allah' for years now.

Ishmael