Thursday, August 15, 2013

Video: Obama Backed Militants Execute Teenage Boys

Video: Obama Backed Militants Execute Teenage Boys

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Another grisly reminder that the White House is supporting jihadist extremists in Syria
Paul Joseph Watson
August 15, 2013
A shocking new video out of Syria shows Obama-backed militants executing two teenage boys whom they accused of supporting the Assad regime, yet another reminder that the White House is arming jihadist extremists.
The clip shows two blindfolded teenage boys being forced to kneel on the floor as a masked man standing over them reads out a statement in which he accuses the boys of being regime gunmen and that, “It is our duty to execute them.”
The man then walks away as a crowd screams “Allahu Akbar!” and the two boys are horrifically shot to death.
The execution took place in northern Syria and was carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an Al-Qaeda affiliate group. The two boys came from the Shiite-majority towns of Nubul and Zahra in Aleppo province.
An Associated Press report citing the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights still manages to partly blame the Assad regime for the boys’ deaths, claiming that attempts to exchange them for rebel prisoners were rejected.
The Obama administration announced its intention to arm the Syrian opposition back in June despite a plethora of evidence confirming that FSA rebels have joined forces with Al-Qaeda terrorists and are committing atrocities on a routine basis.
Last month we reported on how an entire town of Christians in Syria’s Western province of Homs were massacred by FSA rebels.
It recently emerged that the CIA had been using an annexe near the US Consulate in Benghazi that was attacked last year as an outpost tosmuggle weapons to FSA rebels. The federal agency attempted to cover-up the scandal by subjecting its agents to regular polygraph tests in an effort to prevent leaks.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for and Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Tags: ,

AFRICOM General: We Knew Benghazi was a Terror Attack

AFRICOM General: We Knew Benghazi was a Terror Attack

A bunch of retired or retiring generals are suddenly saying inconvenient things. Inconvenient for Obama Inc.
The former head of U.S. forces in Africa, General Carter Ham, told the Aspen Security Forum that it quickly became clear the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi last year was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous demonstration.
“It became apparent to all of us quickly that this was not a demonstration, this was a violent attack,” Ham said. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially had portrayed the embassy attack as a response to an inflammatory internet video.
Ham said he was in Washington D.C. for a routine meeting on September 11, 2012 with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, when an alert came in from commanders in Stuttgart, Germany that a violent assault was underway on the consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing.
Asked if it was a terrorist attack, Ham said the intelligence left no doubt that it was.
“I don’t know if that was my first reaction, but pretty quickly as we started to gain understanding within the hours after the initiation of the attack, yes.”
Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack. But that information was censured under pressure from Victoria Nuland, who was rewarded for her chicanery with a promotion. Petraeus was taken down with an inappropriate investigation into his private life. And Hillary, oh what difference does it make?

What White House Press Secretary Jay Carney just said about the emails the night of the Benghazi crisis (September 11, 2012)

What White House Press Secretary Jay Carney just said about the emails the night of the Benghazi crisis (September 11, 2012)

(I have one question….why didn’t the Administration mention the content of the email right away ?   They sure went out with the video story right away…why didn’t they add: “and a specific terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda has also taken responsibility on Facebook and twitter…” That seems to have been buried – even if in unclassified emails.  It would have been easy to tell the American people BOTH the video and terrorist group information and to add they were uncertain which.  Carney says below that they all knew INSTANTANEOUSLY about the terrorist group claim in e email – only American people did not know because they were not told by the Administration. They got the video story.
“There were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack.  The email you’re referring to was an open source unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously. There was a variety of information coming in, the whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible and I would refer you to what we’ve already said about, and what the DNI has said about the initial assessments of the inelegant community and the fact that throughout this process I and others make very clear that our prelim assessments were preliminary, that an investigation was underway and as more facts became available, we would make the American people aware of them. Again this was an open source, unclassified email posting on a facebook site.
I would also note, I think within a few hours  that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact. That’s why there’s an infestation underway.”

Beck’s Fascinating Breakdown of the OBL Situation Room Photo — and How What Obama Doesn’t Have in Front of Him Is Incredibly Telling...

Beck’s Fascinating Breakdown of the OBL Situation Room Photo — and How What Obama Doesn’t Have in Front of Him Is Incredibly Telling...

In this handout image provided by the White House, President Barack Obama, 
Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of 
the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama 
bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. (Getty 
In this handout image provided by the White House, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. (Getty Images)
Your browser does not support iframes.
(THE BLAZE) -- How closely have you looked at the now-historic photo of the White House Situation Room during the Osama bin Laden raid?
On his radio show Thursday — in light of recent claims that President Obama said “I can’t watch this entire thing” and played about “15 games of Spades” during the 2011 raid — Glenn Beck took a closer look at everything from the president’s lack of a seat at the table to what the commander in chief’s motivations may have been for reportedly opting to be absent for a large part of the proceedings.


In this handout image provided by the White House, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. (Getty Images)
“First of all, who can’t watch? Who can’t watch the biggest villain in American history being shot?” Beck asked. “One, somebody who is internally conflicted on this whole thing. And if you are a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood and you’ve embraced the Muslim Brotherhood…then there’s a chance this president couldn’t watch it because he thinks injustice is being done.”
“I don’t particularly subscribe to that point of view because I don’t think the president is a Muslim, but I do think he has Muslim and Arabic sympathies that run much deeper than his American sympathies,” Beck added.
Beck then offered his second theory: “The other reason why you play Spades all day and you’re not in the Situation Room is because you’re a coward. You’re just, ‘Oh, I’m so upset. I just can’t ‑‑ I don’t know. I can’t watch that. It’s so ‑‑ it’s so exciting and yet so dangerous! I can’t watch that.’”
“Who does that?” Beck demanded.  “That’s a girl. That’s a guy who ‑‑ well, rides a girl’s bike with a little girl helmet…What kind of commander in chief is not in the Situation Room?”
“Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt,” Beck said. “He’s not conflicted at all — he’s worried about the men…you’re so worried that you won’t sit there and be with them? It’s not like you’re a casual observer. You ordered them to go do it…You have the responsibility to be there with them.  [So] if the call needs to be made that they don’t have to send somebody up on the elevator to go get you and say, ‘Mr. President, I have to make a call right now…’  You make the call. You’re there. You sent them into harm’s way, and you can’t watch it.”


 “The entire [Situation Room] is designed for the president of the United States because he’s the commander in chief,” Beck began.  “Not the generals, nobody else –he makes the call.  So the entire situation room is built with him at the head of the table.  All of the monitors sit in front of him.  Everybody else has to turn their body and look…All the clocks, all the intel, everything is on that wall facing him. [It's] all built for him in that power situation.”
“Now — who is sitting at the head of that table?” Beck asked, in reference to the famous photo above.
“The general,” he continued. “And then you have some advisers and Hillary Clinton and then you have Joe Biden, who has been sitting there.”
But not only is the president not at the head of the table, Beck said, he appears not even to have a proper seat at the table.  Nor does he have a computer, “because he’s been playing cards apparently all day.”
But it goes still even further than that, Beck said.
Beck said he’s been reading a lot about Walt Disney lately, and when the man entered a room, “there was just so much profound respect” for him that everybody stood.
With the president of the United States, Beck and his co-hosts argued, it seems as though nobody even offered him a chair, or it was offered and he said, “No thanks — I’m just coming in for a second, not going to stay long.”
Looking at the picture, Beck remarked: “He’s in the corner, in the corner, not even at the table sitting at a little folding chair, a little teeny chair off to the side like an aide to the general…It’s amazing.”
“He is absolutely a fraud,” Beck concluded.  “I don’t know, he might be a better person than what they’ve portrayed, but he’s not who he says he is, in any way, shape, or form. He’s just not that guy. And he’s afraid.”
“What you should know today is the only reason why they’re going after the rodeo clowns and everything else is because they are freaked out you’re going to figure this out,” Beck said. Read more...

Rep. Adam Kinzinger: 2 Days After Benghazi Hillary Clinton Screamed At A Congressman For Calling It Terrorism

Rep. Adam Kinzinger: 2 Days After Benghazi Hillary Clinton Screamed At A Congressman For Calling It Terrorism

At a town hall meeting in Rochelle, Illinois Wednesday evening Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger dropped a bombshell about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the cover-up of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya in which Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were killed by Islamic terrorist with ties to Al Qaeda.
Kinzinger said, “Two days after this attack we were in a briefing with Hillary Clinton and she screamed at a member of Congress who’d dare suggest that this was a terrorist attack.”
Kinzinger then said, “Now we find out that while it was happening they knew it was a terrorist attack”.

Of course at this point what difference does it make.
Senator Rand Paul has said that Hillary should be brought back before Congress to answer questions about Benghazi, after this revelation she had better.
Hillary Benghazi
By Tim Brown
Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) spoke at a town hall meeting on Wednesday evening dropped a bombshell about former Secretary Hillary Clinton. According to Kinzinger, Clinton shouted him down for suggesting that the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya were the result of Islamic terrorists.
“Two days after this attack we were in a briefing with Hillary Clinton and she screamed at a member of Congress who’d dare suggest that this was a terrorist attack,” Kinzinger said.
Kinzinger then added, “Now we find out that while it was happening they knew it was a terrorist attack.”
In the video, Kinzinger doesn’t point to any source for his claims. However, we do know from various people that many in the administration did know that the attacks in Benghazi were jihadist terrorist attacks.
Former CIA Director, General David Petraeus told Congress that Benghazi was a terrorist attack “almost instantly.” The CIA, apparently knew it as well. The White House knew it was a terrorist attack within two hours, according to emails from the State Department. AFRICOM General Carter Ham said he knew it was a terror attack.
So why the cover-up? Why the manipulating of talking points? Why was the anti-Islam video and its creator used as the scapegoat? The truth is sometimes hard to swallow, but I think Dean Garrison laid out one of the best scenarios of what really took place in Benghazi.
The question now remains, will the Senate call Hillary Clinton back to answer these charges as Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, or will they choose to ignore these facts and exclaim as Clinton did, “What difference does it make?”
- See more at:

California Attorney General to Feds: No Handguns For You

California Attorney General to Feds: No Handguns For You

Apparently, Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris has changed California State Department of Justice policy and is now limiting federal law enforcement agents’ ability to acquire handguns. The AG says the feds can only buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us).
Understandably, federal law enforcement officers aren’t happy about it. Welcome feds, to the California disarmament festival.
California law restricts the types of handguns people can acquire through licensed firearm dealers (PC 32000). As backwards as it sounds, before most Californians can acquire a handgun, that firearm must not be considered “unsafe.” To not be considered “unsafe,” handguns must pass performance tests and have certain features that (in theory only) make the firearms allegedly safer (PC 31910). Most problematic for the California public is the recent development that before any semiautomatic pistol can be added to the Roster of guns approved for sale they must be equipped with “microstamping” technology (PC 31910(b)(7)).  Starting a couple months ago, this easily circumvented engraving technology is now required on new semiautomatic pistols before they can be added to the approved roster (pistols submitted for safety testing when “microstamping” was certified, on May 17, 2013, can still be added to the Roster).
California citizens are just as frustrated as federal law enforcement officers with the situation. When the roster of available pistols they can purchase dwindles down to a limited few – because manufacturers are refusing to implement “microstamping” – federal law enforcement’s objections will grow louder. And if pending legislation (SB 293) concerning “smart guns” passes and is signed by the Governor, federal law enforcement will also be forced to choose from an even more limited number of models … just like civilians.
Forgive us mere civilians if we aren’t completely sympathetic to the plight of the feds.
The Feds predicament stems from a recent (and correct) change in the Attorney General’s interpretation of existing California law. While California law restricts the sale of “unsafe handguns” by dealers, there are some exceptions to the restriction. The exception used by most law enforcement agencies and officers, and the one used until recently by federal law enforcement officers, was the following:
The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff’s official, any marshal’s office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
Pen. Code, § 32000(b)(4) 
You might notice, as did the California’s Attorney General, that federal law enforcement officers are not mentioned in this exception! The “Department of Justice” referred to in this section is the California Department of Justice, not a federal agency. So the AG’s analysis is correct: federal law enforcement is not exempt from the “unsafe handgun” restriction.
Welcome to the party guys! Don’t drop your soap.
Hey, maybe the feds can try to take advantage of a number of other exceptions to “unsafe handgun” sales restriction.The private party exception (PC 32110(a)) allows “unsafe handguns” to be transferred between two individuals who reside in California. That works sometimes. In fact, maybe federal law enforcement officers can convince their friends in the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office or Los Angeles Police Department to purchase firearms on their behalf, as a few officers from those agencies have been doing. But oops, turns out that’s illegal. (See the following links concerning the federal criminal case filed against members of the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, and articles concerning the LAPD illegal transfers).
Okay, if that won’t work maybe the federal officers can take advantage of the “single shot pistol” exception (PC 32100). Some civilians have tried this, by finding a single shot version of “unsafe handguns” they want to acquire, then modifying it after purchase. This voids the warranty, but we do suggest that feds buy these before the legislature closes this exception as well (AB 169 is currently in the appropriations “suspense file” but may be brought back at any time).
No doubt this screwing of federal agents will be “fixed” by the legislature when and if federal law enforcement agencies find a state politician with a compassionate ear. Despite the law’s potential change, the question remains: why is law enforcement allowed special privileges to acquire firearms to defend themselves and their families when the general public can’t acquire the same firearms? We are all at risk. So why limit anyone’s right to access the best tools to defend themselves and their families? Why the double-standard?
Barring those few exceptions we, the self-defense civil rights activists of California, welcome federal law enforcement officers to the State of California disarmament festival. We thank them for their service. We look forward to them joining us in the limited exercise of our Second Amendment rights, or fighting for its expansion … for all of us!
This article is filed in the following categories in the database: Legal Frontlines.
  • Sal Bonito says:
    There are now too many reasons for a Californian to consider moving out of state… these draconian gun bills and laws just might be enough for me to give up on this state.
    How can so many be so fooled by so few?
  • Frank says:
    Lets all get together and vote these idiots out off office, there has got to be more of us then ldts do it
  • Will says:
    CALDOJ is just as clueless as anyone else regarding the law. I was told over the phone that I should probably get CCW for my Federally issued duty weapon so I’m not in violation of California law. My response was how to I get a CCW for a weapon that is owned by the federal government? Oops, can’t do that either….so essentially all Federal Agents are in violation of California law by carrying duty weapons and magazines since the only mention of federal agents in all of these new laws refers to us while on duty….Honestly California can go F itself. I’m screwed here as a gun owner, and am now getting the shaft as a federal agent….don’t call me to help when this welfare state starts burning to the ground….
  • Will says:
    I’m also in the process of writing state legislators and speaking to lawyers to try and get this resolved. So don’t think I’m all talk.
  • askeptic says:
    Several comments today at other sites wondering if the carve-outs in firearms laws are not a de facto granting of nobility to LE, in violation of the Constitutional prohibition of the granting of titles (Art-I, Sec-9(8).
  • Carl Adams says:
    As Sal says, it is time to get out of California. I’m headed for Az where the gun laws are sane.
  • Hank O says:
    Don’t forget, California does not recognize the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, aka HR 218, that allows authorized federal, state and local law enforcement, active and retired, to carry a concealed weapon nationally. It’s not just active and retired feds BUT ALL ACTIVE AND RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT that do not have a California CCW.
  • Please do not move to arizona, or if you do dont try and implement any of your silly laws here. Otherwise come on over, just leave your government there.
  • JanK says:
    I just heard today on the news that crime in California is on the rise. I’m SHOCKED! Realignment and disarming honest citizens, and the crime rate rises. Go figure. Hello, Idaho?
  • Steven in CA says:
    What CA DOJ says regarding whether a federal law applies in this state is legally irrelevant. If AG Kamala Harris thinks it doesn’t apply, maybe she should read the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution as well as the ancient case of In Re Neagle in which the Supreme Court held that a fed officer carrying out his duties can’t be prosecuted in a state court. (Neagle, a US Marshal, was charged with murder by CA after Neagle shot a former CA Supreme Court Chief Justice who was attacking an incumbent US Supreme Court Justice!.)
  • NotWill says:
    I think Will is a Mall Ninja. I hope we dont have agents who think and act like that employed.
  • Ron says:
    Kamala is running for the “Grand Moff Tarkin” award. “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”
  • [...] California seems to be engaging in their own nullification law. [...]
  • [...] buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us),” reports. “No doubt this screwing of federal agents will be ‘fixed’ by the [...]
  • [...] buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us),” reports. “No doubt this screwing of federal agents will be ‘fixed’ by the [...]
  • Beth Anne says:
    You ask why the double standard…
    Because we the people allow it. When will we stop the madness?
  • John says:
    Now, if we could just persuade the manufacturers of all the firearms that are on the list to withdraw their products, would we not have slam dunk of a case to offer under Heller (I think) that we must be allowed to purchase firearms that are in common use and that therefore the list is unconstitutional?
  • there’s no laws as such in Alaska,they wont allow contamination by lower 48 states as said there.
  • Charles Ross says:
    If it is a good law for California, it is a good law for Federal police (and local).
  • [...]  He has much more on the issue here. [...]
  • […] they may not. Although that policy change is a correct interpretation of the law, as CalGunLaws recently explained, now the DOJ is curiously hesitant to reevaluate its incorrect policy that retired federal […]

Few Opportunities Seen for U.S. Military Ground Robot Sales

Few Opportunities Seen for U.S. Military Ground Robot SalesBy Stew Magnuson

Reserve component sailors use a Talon Mark 2

With shrinking budgets and the end of major operations in Afghanistan on the horizon, there are only a few niche sales opportunities for the makers of ground combat robots remaining, industry and military officials have said this week at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International show in Washington, D.C.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars saw several robot models introduced to the battlefield for the first time to counter roadside bombs and provide reconnaissance and surveillance. The Army will be divesting itself of about half of those mechanized soldiers, said Lt. Col. Stuart Hatfield, soldier systems and unmanned ground systems branch chief, Army G-8.

Not only is the demand for these robots decreasing, many of them are simply at the end of their service lives after seven or eight years of wear and tear, he said.

The Army's $500 million small unmanned autonomous ground vehicle, or SUGV, program was canceled in 2011. The program was a survivor of the now-defunct Future Combat Systems. It was intended to be a reconnaissance robot to accompany small units.

Hatfield said the Army, along with the Marine Corps, have aspirations to field a joint, multi-mission ground robot similar to SUGV, but so far they are only aspirations. He is waiting for requirements for a ground robot to come from Army Training and Doctrine Command. When he has those documents in hand, then he can go out and compete with other Army  programs for funding. However, he did not anticipate any money for such a program until the 2016-to-2020 budget cycle.

The only ground robot program of record is the Navy's Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robotic System, which will field a family of three vehicles — small, medium and large. The Navy is not buying complete robots, but rather the various subsystems such as robotic arms, chassis, sensors and so on, to integrate.

An award to choose a lead systems integrator to take the individual modules and meld them together into the first of the three robots is "imminent," said Byron Brezina, the system's program manager. That integrator will then manufacture the robots, but it will not carry the company's brand name. The small robot will have nine subcomponents to be integrated. The larger versions will have about 12 or 13 modules, he said.

There will be ongoing competitions to improve and add components as technology advances and threats change, Brezina said. There will not be any sole source contractors, he  added.

"This is going to increase competition and innovation," he said.

At $150 million, the initial contract to be the integrator and manufacturer is highly sought after in the industry, said Mike Knopp, director of Northrop Grumman Remotec. The work will last 12 to 18 months and will call for the final integration of the nine modules that will comprise the robot and the delivery of the first four systems.

"Given the budgetary situation and it being the only [unmanned ground vehicle] program of record right now, that is a pretty significant pursuit for industry," Knopp said.

After that, it is speculative as to how much work the winner of the contract will gain from the Navy. It will most likely be an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, which the military uses to procure items as needed, Knopp said.

Robot manufacturers such as Remotec will have to content itself with competing for the dozen or so individual modules that will eventually be integrated onto the medium and heavy versions of the Navy EOD robots. Development of those two systems are a year or two behind the small, backpackable version, Brezina said.

Remotec recently introduced its new Titus robot, but has no hopes that the U.S. military will purchase them "off the shelf" even though it would be the perfect size for the Navy's medium-sized EOD robot at about 135 pounds. Instead, the company hopes modules such as its manipulator arm or its mobility features might make it as a subsystem on the medium or large versions of the Navy advanced EOD robots.

Meanwhile, Remotec is looking at the first-responder market — in which it is well established as a supplier — and overseas for customers. It has sold seven of the new model Titus robots to an undisclosed South American customer, and one to the city of Tampa, Fla.

Similarly, iRobot, recently sold 30 robots to Brazil for its government to use during various international events being held in that country, said Mark Belanger, director of Department of Defense robotic products.

iRobot was one of the two manufacturers that benefitted from the urgent need to rapidly field off-the-shelf bomb disposal robots in Iraq and Afghanistan. There will still be sales of replacement parts as those robots remain in the four services’ inventories, he said.

The Army is going to keep about 2,400 robots and those will have to be reset and upgraded, he said.

There may be other niche opportunities in the U.S. military for robots outside of the EOD communities, he said. Now that the robots have proven their utility in the field, and the conflicts are winding down, entities such as Special Forces or the chemical, biological, nuclear detection communities may take a look at how robots can help their missions, Belanger said.

"People are taking a deep breath now and working on their tactics, techniques and procedures and developing their new concepts of operation. And most of those guys are interested in dismounted small robots," he said.

U.S. Condemns Terrorist Attacks in Iraq and Pledges to Help Combat al Qaeda

U.S. Condemns Terrorist Attacks in Iraq and Pledges to Help Combat al Qaeda

Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
August 10, 2013

The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the cowardly attacks today in Baghdad. These attacks were aimed at families celebrating the Eid al-Fitr holiday that marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The terrorists who committed these acts are enemies of Islam and a shared enemy of the United States, Iraq, and the international community.
The attacks today bear the hallmarks of similar suicide and vehicle bomb attacks in Iraq over the past ninety days. Most of these attacks have been perpetrated by al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under Executive Order 13224. He is also listed at the United Nations Security Council 1267/1989 al-Qa'ida Sanctions Committee.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, also known as Abu D'ua, is now based in Syria and has changed the name of AQI to the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS). He has taken personal credit for a series of terrorist attacks in Iraq since 2011, and most recently claimed credit for the operations against the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, the suicide bombing assault on the Ministry of Justice, among other attacks against Iraqi Security Forces and Iraqi citizens going about their daily lives.
The United States has offered a $10 million reward for information that helps authorities kill or capture Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This reward is second only to information leading to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief of Al Qaeda’s network, and symbolizes our ongoing commitment to helping our partners in the region eliminate this threat from their territory.
In this regard, the United States is prepared to work closely with the Iraqi Government to confront the threat posed by Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups. We look forward to discussing bilateral cooperation in this and other areas, pursuant to the Strategic Framework Agreement between our two countries, during the upcoming visit of Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari next week in Washington.
Our deepest condolences go out to the families of the victims of today's attacks and we hope for the quick recovery of the injured. The United States will stand with the Iraqi people as they work to overcome these horrific attacks perpetrated by a common enemy.

PRN: 2013/0991

Back to Top
Obamacare Provision: “Forced” Home Inspections 457 Comments Share19.5K Tweet594 126 Share22.8K “Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.” According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below: Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.” In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.” Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, “This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit. Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.” Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source. A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database. Last session South Carolina Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a bill, H.3101 that would nullify certain provisions of Obamacare. The bill would give the state attorney general the authority to authorize law enforcement to arrest federal agents for trespassing. It would make forced home inspections under Obamacare illegal in South Carolina. It passed in the House but died in the senate. Kent Brown and Rep. Rick Quinn discuss “forced” home inspections under Obamacare in the video below. Read more:

Affordable Care Act - Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program

Funding Cycle View


Affordable Care Act - Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program


 Details of the changes posted in this announcement

Modification published on 07/16/2012
Modified on 7/16: Modification to CCR information throughout the FOA. Modification to the policy requirements in Section VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

Modification published on 07/12/2012
Modified on 7/12: Modification to footnote 1 in Section I.1. Purpose; modification to the budget period start date in Section V.3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates and Section VI.1. Award Notices.

 Announcement Information

Announcement Number HRSA-12-156
Announcement Code
CFDA Number 93.505
Provisional No
Activity Code D89
Competitive Yes
Fiscal Year 2012


The purpose of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Competitive Grant program is to award Development Grants to States that currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts. Successful applicants will sufficiently demonstrate the capacity to expand or enhance their evidence-based home visiting programs. The funding provided will build on the formula funding already provided to States and territories to support the quality implementation of home visiting programs. Additionally, this funding opportunity will continue the program's emphasis on rigorous research by grounding the proposed work in relevant empirical literature, and by including requirements to evaluate work proposed under this grant. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, approximately $12,000,000 will be available to support competitive Development Grants to eligible States and jurisdictions under the MIECHV program. $125,000,000 will be awarded on a formula basis to grantees funded under HRSA-11-187 for the MIECHV program. Successful applicants will be awarded FY 2012 competitive Development Grant funds, in addition to the FY2012 MIECHV formula based funds. Priority for Serving High-Risk Populations and Programmatic Areas of Emphasis As directed in the legislation , successful applicants will give priority to providing services to the following populations: a) Eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services, as identified in the statewide needs assessment required under subsection (b)(1)(A). b) Low-income eligible families. c) Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. d) Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. e) Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. f) Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. g) Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. h) Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. i) Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces, including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of the United States." In addition, the Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) have identified the following programmatic areas of emphasis. Applicants may propose to address one or more of these areas in response to this funding opportunity announcement: o Emphasis 1: Improvements in maternal, child, and family health o Emphasis 2: Effective implementation and expansion of evidence-based home visiting programs or systems with fidelity to the evidence-based model selected o Emphasis 3: Development of statewide or multi-State home visiting programs o Emphasis 4: Development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum o Emphasis 5: Outreach to high-risk and hard-to-engage populations o Emphasis 6: Development of a family-centered approach to home visiting o Emphasis 7: Outreach to families in rural or frontier areas o Emphasis 8: The development of fiscal leveraging strategies to enhance program sustainability For a more detailed description of each area of emphasis, please see Appendix A: MIECHV Programmatic Emphasis Areas.

 Legislative Information

Social Security Act, Title V, §511 (42 U.S.C. §711), as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, §2951 (P.L. 111-148).

 Application Information

Application Available 07/09/2012
Application Deadline 08/08/2012
Explanation for Deadline N/A
Archive Date 10/07/2012
Letter of Intent Not required
Application Package SF424
FOA Available Yes
Competitive Application Types Supported New
Allow Electronic Submission N/A
Page Limit for Application
Allow Multiple Applications
from an Organization from
Electronic Submission Instruction Electronic submission is/will be available in Grants.Gov

 General Information

Projected Award Date 09/30/2012
Estimated Project Period N/A
Estimated Project Start Date 09/30/2012
Estimated Project End Date 09/29/2014
Estimated Amount of this Competition $12,000,000.00
Estimated Number of Awards 8
Estimated Average Size of Awards N/A
Cost Sharing No
Cooperative Agreement No

 Contact Information

Name Audrey M. Yowell, PhD, MSSS
Phone Number 3014434292

 Download Information

Expand FOA (Guidance) Attachment (Minimum 0) (Maximum 1)
Document Name Size Date Attached Description
HRSA-12-156 Final with Mods 7-16-12.pdf 426 kB 07/16/2012
Expand Application Package (Minimum 0) (Maximum 1)
No documents attached
Expand User Guide (Minimum 0) (Maximum 1)
No documents attached