Monday, December 15, 2014

Domestic Enemies of the US: the Radical Left

Monday, December 15, 2014

Radical Left Threatens Police
There were major demonstrations again this weekend in cities across the country protesting police brutality and racism. In Washington, D.C., thousands marched down Pennsylvania Avenue in a protest organized by Al Sharpton, featuring family members of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and others who died in altercations with police.

The vast majority of marchers in most cities were peaceful. But a significant contingent of left-wing radicals once again hijacked the protests to push for an extreme agenda.

There is video of marchers in New York chanting: "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!"

One large banner that took at least half a dozen people to hold read: "Real Thugs Wear Flag Pins." Get it? If you are patriotic, you are part of the problem according to these anarchists.

In Oakland, California, the march that was supposed to promote peace and justice devolved into violence as an American flag was burned, stores were looted and dozens were arrested for vandalism.

A march across the Brooklyn Bridge nearly turned into a riot when demonstrators started throwing projectiles from the upper level onto police below. When two police lieutenants went to arrest a man (later identified as Eric Linsker) who was attempting to throw a trash can down onto cops, they were attacked by a mob. One officer suffered a broken nose.

Ironically, the two lieutenants were members of the NYPD's Legal Bureau, who, according to the New York Post, were "specifically assigned to the anti-cop protest to make sure the demonstrators' civil rights weren't violated." The relationship between extreme left New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the NYPD is so bad that the police union has launched a campaign to ban the mayor from police funerals.

Linsker initially fled, but the police were able to track him down after he dropped his backpack at the scene. Inside were three hammers, marijuana and a black ski mask. This thug is a Harvard graduate and college English professor. When he's not indoctrinating young students or throwing trash cans from bridges, Linsker spends his time writing poetry with lines like "F--k the police."

Lest you think I'm being overly critical and drawing attention only to the few bad apples, consider what Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick had to say about protests in Boston. Governor Patrick was asked on CNN about the goal of the marches and he said it was a "great question."

He added that state officials had tried to contact the march organizers in advance in order to "accommodate the protests," but they never responded. Gov. Patrick said, "They weren't interested in engagement because part of the point was to be disruptive."

That's very telling. The governor isn't talking about a few lone protestors, but the protest organizers. If a liberal Massachusetts Democrat is implying that these protests are not necessarily motivated by legitimate justice issues, perhaps more people should be questioning their motivation. There is growing evidence that the radical Occupy Wall Street crowd is attempting to hijack this movement.

Jihad In Sydney
Sydney, Australia, is the latest target of jihadist terrorism. Man Haron Monis, an Iranian refugee with a lengthy and violent criminal history, entered the Lindt cafe in downtown Sydney during morning rush hour and took at least a dozen hostages.

Monis forced some of the hostages to hold up the black flag of jihad. The crisis ended 16 hours later when a SWAT team stormed the cafe and killed Monis. Two others are reportedly dead.

Australia has been a key U.S. ally in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and it has paid a heavy toll for standing with us. In 2002, bombs destroyed two night clubs popular with foreign tourists in Bali, Indonesia, killing 88 Australians.

This year, Prime Minister Tony Abbott committed Australian troops to the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In September, hundreds of Australian law enforcement officers carried out raids in several major cities. More than a dozen jihadist sympathizers were arrested for plotting random beheadings in the streets.

As we learned on 9/11, radical Islam is not just Israel's problem. The desire of jihadists to kill the infidel is not restricted to the Middle East. This enemy cannot be negotiated with and political correctness will not appease it. The nations of the civilized world must find the courage to defeat these modern day barbarians.

Will Obama Abandon Israel?
Relations between the United States and Israel are at their lowest point in decades. The latest evidence of the growing rift between Washington and Jerusalem comes amid a new push by Jordan and France for U.N. recognition of "Palestine" based on Israel's pre-1967 borders.

Three years ago, President Obama made it clear that the United States would veto a Security Council resolution recognizing demands for Palestinian statehood that undermined Israel's security. But according to Reuters, "a senior U.S. official said it was too early to say" whether the U.S. would veto this latest proposal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is meeting with Secretary of State Kerry and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi today, was unequivocal. Netanyahu said:

"I will tell [Kerry and Renzi] that Israel stands, to a great extent, as a solitary island against the waves of Islamic extremism washing over the entire Middle East. This will bring the radical Islamic elements to the suburbs of Tel Aviv and to the heart of Jerusalem. We will not allow this."

Friday, December 12, 2014

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Monday, November 24, 2014

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

On Nuclear War

Nuclear War: Russia Shocks US With Tactical Weapons, Pentagon Retaliates
By Athena Yenko | November 15, 2014 6:25 PM EST

Russia is in possession of strategic nuclear weapons far more advance than the United States, and it will continue to lead the game with its new generation of missiles, according to a comprehensive report. Indeed, if World War 3 erupts, Russian Vladimir Putin will win hands down, the report said.

The report claims that Russia was able to amass its massive nuclear power because the U.S. had been dismissive and neglectful of achieving innovations in decades after winning the Cold War. Specifically, the U.S. had closed the possibility of developing high-precision long-range weapons that could eradicate enemies even without coming to direct contact. But Russia never stops innovating despite much criticism and the more accepted notion that the country is weak and the west is superior.

At this point, Russia has "long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla," the report stated. And not only that - Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are far more superior to that of NATO's, the report said.

NATO's member countries have only 260 tactical weapons. The U.S. has 200 bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons - located in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. France has 60 atomic bombs, as outlined by the report. "Russia, according to conservative estimates, has 5,000 pieces of different classes" of tactical nuclear weapons "from Iskander warheads to torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads," the report from PRAVDA highlighted.

The report seemed to have solid basis. Russia's plans of sending long-range bombers to the Gulf of Mexico are being widely reported. Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu declared that Russia has to maintain its military presence in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, including the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. This included sending long-range bombers as part of the drills. Russia will also be sending more troops in Crimea. Shoigu noted that the deployments are in response to the "fomentation of anti-Russian moods on the part of NATO and reinforcement of foreign military presence next to our border," CNN reported.

U.S. officials did not buy the idea that Russia has the capability of deploying long-range bombers. A source had reportedly told CNN that the U.S. found no security threat proving that such bold and destructive activity is happening. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki echoed the same opinion.

However, Pentagon retaliates with Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel announcing a proposal of an additional $1.5 billion to the $15 billion a year worth of maintenance to U.S.' nuclear arsenals.  He admitted that US Air Force and Navy were beleaguered with scandals over the years. These scandals resulted to the neglect of the country's nuclear programmes, rendering some infrastructure outdated and maintenance deteriorated, The Washington Post reported.  

At one point, inspections of the nuclear weapons became burdensome for the force, Deputy Secretary of Defence Robert Work said. For a time, there was shortage of specialised tools for the maintenance. A single tool kit for intercontinental ballistic missiles had to be shipped from base to base to conduct maintenance.

Hagel said that nuclear mission remains the military's most important job. Hence, Pentagon officials will now be working anew to improve the status of the government's nuclear programmes by modernising nuclear warheads, long-range bombers and ballistic missile submarines - with the billion worth boost to the annual maintenance budget.

Members of the Congress agreed to the budget proposal. Republicans lauded it too. They said the $1.5 billion boost to the funding is just right. The nuclear programmes had suffered too much neglect because of "insufficient resources, indifferent leadership, and poor morale," Rep. Howard McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Friday, November 07, 2014

The Republican MANDATE

Republicans Must Seize Momentum After Midterm Victories
Published on on November 5, 2014

The Republican Party now has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to define its brand by passing legislation through both houses of Congress. Even if President Obama vetoes the bills -- as he will -- they will answer the nagging question among the voters: What does the Republican Party stand for?

Conventional political consultants will be content to luxuriate in the negative image Obama has created for himself and for his party. But the wiser leaders of the GOP will realize that it is only by articulating a programmatic alternative that Republicans can really seal the deal with the majority of Americans.

Nobody pays attention to political platforms or candidate speeches. White papers from campaigns are best for lining wastebaskets. The media won't cover one-house bills passed by Republicans knowing that the Senate will never assent.

But if the Republicans pass serious legislation through both houses of Congress, the media has to take it seriously. And if these bills are in sync with the concerns of most Americans, it will only be to the advantage of the GOP if Obama vetoes them.

Republicans in the House have amassed a considerable body of good proposals that passed the House but Harry Reid has refused to bring up in the Senate. More are lying on desks in committee, ready to be reported out.

The GOP should declare its own "100 days" and pass a comprehensive set of proposals to capture the attention and admiration of the American people.

The legislation should include:

•  Approval of the Keystone oil pipeline

•  Repeal of limits on natural gas exports to Europe to fight Russian influence there

•  An override of Obama's forthcoming executive order ending certain deportations

•  Corporate tax reform to lower rates and repeal deductions

•  Regulation of derivatives

•  An end to the carried interest tax break

•  Repeal of special treatment for illegal immigrant children who show up at the border from Central America

•  A flight ban on arrivals from West Africa while Ebola remains a danger there

•  Privacy legislation to rein in the National Security Agency

•  Completion of a border fence with Mexico

•  Over-the-counter contraception sales

•  New sanctions on Iran unless it meets certain congressionally required thresholds for dismantling its nuclear program

•  Requiring the Department of Commerce to renew its contract with the Internet oversight group ICANN to forestall a United Nations takeover

•  Repeal of the one-sided regulations adopted by the National Labor Relations Board

•  Rejecting the Law of the Sea and Arms Trade treaties in the Senate

•  Repeal of the "death panel" Medicare Payment Advisory Board and repeal of the medical device tax in ObamaCare

•  Barring Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas rules and repealing subsidies of renewable sources of energy

•  Reinforcing the ban in the Affordable Care Act against forcing the cancellation of grandfathered policies. The Congress should specify that no changes in policies or premiums can evade the application of this ban.

Most of this ambitious agenda will meet with the approval of both the moderate and the Tea Party wings of the Party. With a minimum of posturing and squabbling, the Republican leadership of Congress should move to enact it and to seize the initiative away from the Obama administration.

Obama's vetoes will come to stereotype his administration and the Democrats as the real Party of No -- an appellation too often appended to the GOP in the past. And they will tie the hands of the Democratic nominee in 2016. If it is Hillary Clinton, she will have to disavow the vetoes to win the swing vote even as she has to embrace them to court the party base.

Wednesday, November 05, 2014

Goodbye Obama (and good riddance!)

End of the Age of Obama
Posted on Monday, November 3rd, 2014

The end of the Age of Obama. It began with high hopes on a winter’s night in Iowa in 2008 and ended in disappointment on a crisp fall day nearly seven years later.

Sure, the president has another two years in office, but he is now the lamest of lame ducks. He is soon to face a House majority that is one of the most Republican since the 1920s, and a Senate, we hope, about to be taken over by a Republican majority. But more than this, he seems to have no friends, and few allies, on Capitol Hill.

One fact of politics that the president never fully grasped is that Congress, not the White House, is the center of our political system. Sure, the president lives in a fancy house, enjoys a full-time chef, and has “Hail to the Chief” played when he enters a room. But Congress is—as Stanford’s Morris Fiorina once put it—“the keystone of the Washington establishment.”

The Framers gave pride of place to Congress, making it Article I of the Constitution, and were so worried about its potential power they divided it into two. Ideally, the modern president can use his prestige and acumen to lead Congress, but Obama has fallen far from that ideal. He has treated Congress in a supercilious manner, burned his bridges with Republican leaders, and alienated even Democrats.

With nobody to call on Capitol Hill, the president will have lots of free time over the next two years. He might use some of it to ponder this truth: There are no permanent majorities in American politics. For over a decade, Democrats have been salivating at the prospect of demographic changes propelling them to permanent majority status. Obama in particular has been active on this front, and has ruthlessly divided the country along race, gender, and class lines in the hope of speeding this process along.

We are seeing this play out right now. Obama’s coalition in 2008 was relatively large—at 53 percent of the vote—but unstable. In a country as vast and diverse as ours, all such coalitions are bound to be unstable. And what we have seen is Republicans poach a critical mass of the Obama vote away, in 2010 and likely in 2014, to foil his agenda. Just as Madison might have expected.

It is well-known that this president likes to golf and watch hipster favorites like Game of Thrones, so he probably is too busy to read dusty old books about men who lived  long ago. But those who aspire to succeed this sterling mediocrity in the White House would do well to spend their free time a little differently.

We would suggest a careful study of the words and deeds of the Founding generation. There is much to learn from Madison’s complex philosophy, Alexander Hamilton’s innovative economic program, George Washington’s careful and steady management, and Thomas Jefferson’s pragmatic policy of conciliation. Let’s hope our next president grasps that you have to respect our past to lead us effectively into the future.


Monday, October 27, 2014

Saturday, October 25, 2014

National Loyalty

About Houston

Subpoenaing Houston Pastors Part of A Larger Strategy
By Newt Gingrich and Vince Haley

The Mayor of Houston’s recent subpoena of sermons by Christian pastors in the country’s fourth largest city is a shocking violation of First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. There is no clearer violation of First Amendment freedoms than for government officials to attempt to censor religious speech.

Lawyers for the Christian pastors were prepared to sue to quash these subpoenas -- and would have succeeded quickly in the courts on Constitutional grounds – when the Mayor withdrew the subpoenas amid an uproar of protest.

So why would Annise Parker, the Houston mayor, issue such subpoenas at all if a court would have stopped her from forcing the pastors to comply? Probably because she is playing for much larger political and constitutional stakes than the power to coerce disclosure of the communications five Houston pastors.

Her signature initiative--the so-called “bathroom bill”, a city ordinance that she championed and signed last May--is being threatened by a public campaign to repeal it in a referendum . The City has challenged the validity of the signatures the citizens collected to force a vote on the ordinance, which led a group of them to sue the City. Mayor Parker responded by subpoenaing five Houston pastors who oppose the ordinance, but who are not even parties to the lawsuit.

In politics, if politicians are not succeeding in their arguments, they change the subject. And Mayor Parker apparently is not succeeding in her defense of a law that opponents claim creates a right, among other newly created sexual and gender identity rights, for anyone to use public bathrooms of the opposite sex in the name of gender rights equality.

Losing her own argument, she’s changing the subject. And if you’re a liberal mayor trying to create new sexual and gender identity rights, there’s apparently no better object on which to refocus the public than the Christian pastors and their beliefs on gender and sexuality.

An attempt to set up the pastors as the foil to her radical agenda would explain the Mayor’s outrageous subpoenas, which demand, among other things, all of the pastors’ emails, texts, and sermons relating to the bathroom bill, the Mayor, the City attorney, restroom access under the bathroom bill, the topics of homosexuality or gender identity, and the petition drive to repeal the bathroom bill. And it would explain the Mayor’s tweet the morning after the subpoenas came to light: “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game. Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition? (“HERO” is an acronym for the “bathroom bill” ordinance.)

Clearly the Mayor is trying to shift the debate from a fight over the merits of her sexual and gender identity agenda to a fight over the Christian worldview of sexual ethics. That’s exactly what the subpoenas were intended to accomplish.

There are three reasons why she might have expected this to be effective.

First, Mayor Parker likely believed that issuing the subpoenas, even if later withdrawn, would cause Houston pastors to think twice about criticizing her or her bathroom bill. She would not be the first politician to harass and attempt to intimidate people with opposing beliefs. The right response to such intimidation is for citizens of all stripes to vote out of office those politicians who practice it.

Second, in the case of pastors, Mayor Parker is clearly aware that there is a provision of U.S. tax law that already tends to chill the speech of some pastors from the pulpit. Known as the “Johnson Amendment” because it was authored by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, the statute states that tax-exempt organizations--churches, for instance--may not "participate in, or intervene in…any political campaign on behalf of…any candidate for public office."

Although the 1954 Johnson Amendment is brazenly in conflict with the free speech and free exercise protections of the First Amendment, Mayor Parker implicitly threatens the churches’ tax-exempt status when she attacks pastors who dare to challenge her ideological agenda. Again the goal is to have pastors back off their criticisms.

The right response to this long-standing threat is for Congress to repeal the Johnson Amendment at the first opportunity. Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) has a very simple bill to do just that.

Third, there is now an established and successful political and constitutional strategy to paint the protection of traditional moral values -- and opposition to newly-invented sexual and gender identity rights -- as motivated by malice. In the 2013 Supreme Court decision (United States v. Windsor) that invalidated Congress’ enacted definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the only purpose of those who supported this traditional definition of marriage was to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” certain groups of fellow citizens.

In a word, hate is all that Justice Kennedy sees when he encounters someone who supports a traditional definition of marriage. Under this newly-invented constitutional standard, if the Court feels today that a particular law is hateful, then the Court will simply invalidate the law, no further justification needed. And it will do so whether or not a vast majority of the public believes reasonable people can disagree about the definition of marriage in particular and about sexual ethics more generally.

We can be confident that Mayor Parker has taken note of Justice Kennedy’s insidious two-part strategy of (1) making skeptics of the left’s sexual and gender identity agenda into “enemies of humanity”, to paraphrase Justice Scalia, and (2) thereby ending political debate over these newly-invented sexual rights by declaring them constitutional rights beyond public debate. Mayor Parker’s attention-grabbing subpoenas of five Christian pastors seems intended to do just that – to persuade the public that ‘these are the hateful haters who oppose my agenda to conjure up new constitutional rights.’

In other words, under the Kennedy-Parker telling, if you are against the Mayor’s law to let anyone in America’s fourth largest city go into any bathroom he (or she?) wants on any given day, then you must be a hateful bigot--one of those intolerant Christians who hates people who don’t think like they do. In the Kennedy-Parker telling, you must be one of those Christians who are using their pulpits to ‘impose their beliefs on the rest of us.’

If this analysis is wrong, Mayor Parker can clear this up by answering these two questions:

1) Does she believe that everyone who does not support her bathroom bill is a hateful bigot?
2) Does she support a citywide referendum on her bathroom bill?

The right response to the supersized intimidation and anti-democratic pretensions of the Justice Kennedys and Mayor Parkers of this country is faithfulness on the part of Christians and a political awakening on the part of all citizens.

Your Friend, Newt

Saturday, October 18, 2014

A GOP Senate? (lets hope)

Why A Senate Majority Can Make All The Difference
By Dick Morris on October 17, 2014

As Republicans close in on a Senate majority, the question looms: What difference would it make? With the White House still at the ready to veto anything the GOP Congress passes, is not a Republican Senate merely another formulation likely to trigger gridlock in Washington?

No! Control of the Senate can be the key to pushing back Obama’s goal of creating a nation ruled by one dominant party in perpetuity, which I discuss in my new book Power Grab.

Control of the Senate hands the Republicans control over the budget. If they overreach and try again to hit a grand slam by zero funding ObamaCare, they will strike out as they did in October of 2013. Obama will simply veto the budget, let the government shut down, and blame the Republicans. We already know how that will turn out — a bit GOP loss.

But if the Republicans use their Senate majority to play small ball and make limited but very important advances, they can use their budgetary power to achieve great ends.

Because Congress has the ability to vote on each line of the budget while the President, lacking the line item veto, can only sign or veto the whole thing, Republicans can advance their agenda one line at a time. Each advance would be important, but they would not rise collectively to enough to justify a presidential veto and a government closure.

For example:

• Republicans can attach to the Homeland Security budget a requirement of a quarantine banning all travelers who have recently been to an Ebola-afflicted nation from coming into the United States.

• They could insert in the ICE budget language overriding the President’s coming executive order ending deportations.

• They could put in the HHS budget provisions killing the death panel (Medicare Payment Advisory Board) and the excise tax on medical devices.

• They can include language Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has gotten in the current budget banning enforcement of the Small Arms Limitation agreement signed by the US at the urging of the UN.

By this “small ball” strategy of using the budget to effect important but limited modifications in Obama’s policies, we can bring the Obama power grab to a screeching halt.

A Republican Senate can also block the confirmation of partisan liberal Democratic judges, using their power either to bargain for better selections or to keep the post vacant until a Republican president takes over. Similarly, they can use their confirmation power to block overly partisan appointments to federal regulatory boards or executive branch agencies.

Having jammed through the elimination of the 60 vote requirement for confirmations, the Democrats will now be shot with their own bullet and be unable to block Republican sway over nominations and confirmations. Turnabout is fair play.

Finally, the Republican Senate should bring to the floor and reject all executive branch power grab treaties Obama and others have signed. These treaties, failing Senate disapproval, remain in effect as a result of the presidential signature under the Vienna Convention.

The treaties we must kill are:

• The Law of the Sea Treaty.

• The Small Arms Trade Treaty.

• The International Criminal Court Treaty.

• The Code of Conduct in Outer Space.

• The Rights of the Disabled Treaty.

• And any Global Climate Change treaty the Administration negotiates.

Some of these treaties are bad ideas. Others, like the Disability Treaty, are not objectionable except that they usurp American jurisdiction and take away our right to legislate for ourselves in this area.

Control of the Senate can make a vast difference. Let’s hope Republicans get it and turn out in large numbers to bring it about.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014



There had never been a case of Ebola in the U.S. until a few months ago. Since then, thousands of people have died of the disease in Africa, and millions upon millions of dollars have been spent treating Ebola patients in the U.S. who acquired it there, one of whom has died.

But the Obama administration refuses to impose a travel ban.

This summer, the U.S. government imposed a travel ban on Israel simply to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire agreement. But we can't put a travel restriction on countries where a contagious disease is raging.

It's becoming increasingly clear this is just another platform for Obama to demonstrate that we are citizens of the world. The entire Ebola issue is being discussed -- by our government, not the United Nations -- as if Liberians are indistinguishable from Americans, and U.S. taxpayers should be willing to pay whatever it takes to save them.

Maybe we should give them the vote, too! If Ebola was concentrated in Finland and Norway -- certainly Israel! -- we'd have had a travel ban on Day One.

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Tom Frieden, justifies Obama's refusal to prohibit flights originating in Ebola-plagued countries, saying, "A travel ban is not the right answer. It's simply not feasible to build a wall -- virtual or real -- around a community, city or country."

What is it with liberals living in gated communities always telling us that fences don't work? THAT'S WHAT A QUARANTINE IS.

At the congressional hearing on Ebola last week, Republicans repeatedly pressed the CDC representative, Dr. Toby Merlin, to explain why Obama refuses to impose a travel ban.

In about 17 tries, Merlin came up with no plausible answer. Like Frieden, Merlin kept insisting that "the only way to protect Americans" is to end the epidemic in Africa.

Why, precisely, must we attack Ebola in Africa? Research on a cure doesn't require cuddling victims in their huts. Scientists who discovered the AIDS cocktail didn't spend their nights at Studio 54 in order to "fight the disease at its source."

Until there's a treatment, we can't put out the disease there, or here. The only thing Americans will be doing in Liberia is changing the bedpans of victims, getting infected and bringing Ebola back to America. When there's a vaccine, we can mail it.

Naturally, Obama is sending troops from the 101st Airborne, the pride of our Army, to Liberia. Their general should resign in protest.

Merlin further explained the travel ban, saying that if West Africans can't fly to America, "that would cause the disease to grow in that area and spill over into other countries." So instead of infecting people in surrounding countries, our CDC wants them to come here and infect Americans.

But that won't happen because the government assures us there's nothing to worry about with Ebola. They've got it under control.

Unfortunately, everything the government says about this disease keeps being proved untrue -- usually within a matter of days.

They told us that you'd basically have to roll in an infected person's vomit to catch the disease. Then, nurses at two first-world hospitals in Spain and the U.S. contracted Ebola from patients.

With no evidence, the CDC simply announced that the nurses were not following proper "protocol." The disease didn't operate the way CDC said it would, so the hospitals must be lying.

The government told us that national quarantines won't work, but then they quarantine everyone with Ebola -- or who has been near someone with Ebola, such as an entire NBC crew. To me, this suggests that there's some value in keeping people who have been near Ebola away from people who have not.

Quite obviously, the only way to protect Americans is to prevent Ebola from coming here in the first place. The problem isn't that Ebola will leap across oceans to infect Americans; it's that Obama doesn't want to protect Americans.

At least he's only putting expendable Americans on the frontlines of the Ebola epidemic -- doctors, nurses, members of the 101st Airborne.

At the moment, more than 13,000 West Africans have travel visas to come to the U.S. Having just seen an Ebola-infected Liberian get $500,000 worth of free medical treatment in the U.S., the first thing any African who might have Ebola should do is get himself to America.

Of all the reasons people have for coming here -- welfare, drug-dealing, Medicare scams -- "I have Ebola and I'm going to die, otherwise" is surely one of the strongest. The entire continent of Africa now knows that this is a country that will happily spend half a million dollars on treating someone who just arrived -- and then berate itself for not doing enough.

Thomas Eric Duncan's family may be upset with his treatment, but they have to admit, the price was right. Medical bill: $0.00. Your next statement will arrive in 30 days.

And now we're going to have to let in entire families with Ebola, because the important thing is -- actually, I don't know why. It's some technical, scientific point about fences not working.

Republicans -- Americans -- have got to demand Frieden's resignation. If only we could demand Obama's.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Friday, September 19, 2014

The Complicated Middle East

Mideast complexities confound US coalition effort
Associated Press

The Middle East has confounded outsiders for years, so it is no surprise that another U.S.-led project with a straightforward goal — destroying a marauding organization of extremists — is bumping up against age-old rivalries and a nod-and-a-wink-style political culture.

U.S. secretary of state John Kerry has received backing for the principle of reversing the territorial gains of the Islamic State group in Iraq. But getting concrete assistance is another matter, and there is a whiff of lip service about the proceedings.

Much of the problem lies in the Muslim region's Sunni-Shiite divide, which outsiders tend to underestimate again and again — only to see it emerging as the dominant factor once more. Here's a look at the landscape:

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has come out against the Islamic State group and its acts of barbarism in Syria and Iraq. Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi clearly reviles political Islam and its militant extension, the jihadis who are tearing up Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt's own Sinai Peninsula. Yet they still have reservations about making a direct move that would be seen as aligning with the Shiite leaderships in Baghdad and Damascus. The issue pops up everywhere: secular Sunnis in northern Iraq actually felt so alienated from the Shiite government of Nouri al-Maliki and its anti-Sunni machinations that — at least for a time earlier this year — they genuinely supported the Islamic State group because it was Sunni. Iran factors into this equation as well: although its Persian majority is not ethnically Arab, it is a Shiite nation, and as such supports the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. Several days of U.S. lobbying, and a new leader in Iraq more amenable to reaching out to non-Shiites, will not change this. Nor will the U.S. sway Turkey, another Sunni power that has not been pleased with the Islamic State group but is still eager to see the overthrow of its enemy, Syrian President Bashar Assad. The issue has no fix; what is needed is finesse.

U.S. credibility has suffered in the Middle East since Sept. 11, 2001, which doesn't help the recruitment effort. The arguments for invading Iraq have been discredited, and the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns — which went on years beyond the original plan — are not looking successful. Smaller fights against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen seem destined to continue without end. The Obama administration's swift abandonment of Hosni Mubarak in 2011 shocked allies in the region, most of whom were hardly more democratic than the ousted Egyptian leader. U.S. attempts to work with Islamists, during the brief rule of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, left many concluding that American leadership was naive and its diplomacy inept. When the U.S. threatened Syria if it used chemical weapons, and then did not attack after their alleged use, it was seen as America flinching, even though Assad eventually gave up the arms. In an echo of colonial-era animosities, many in the region see Western leaders who are stirred to action by the beheading of a few Westerners — but not by hundreds of thousands of Arab deaths. Washington also has proven unable to influence its close ally Israel to slow down Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank — one of the few things that can unite virtually all Sunnis and Shiites in angry opposition.

Two years ago, it looked like political Islam was not only ascendant but destined to dominate. The Muslim Brotherhood and its allies seemed to have an automatic majority in Egypt, did very well in elections in Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and elsewhere, and were becoming dominant even in the Syrian opposition. But the tables have turned dramatically, largely because of the success of the Egyptian military in conflating the Muslim Brotherhood with jihadi radicalism, and by the horrifying actions of Islamic extremists who have harmed the Islamist project as a whole. Today, most governments in the region are working to undermine political Islam, leaving mainly Qatar, which supports the Brotherhood financially and has granted refuge to many of the group's leaders from Egypt as well as Hamas leader Khaled Mashal. Yet even Qatar, under pressure from other Gulf nations, appears to be backtracking, announcing this weekend that several key Brotherhood leaders would be leaving. All this aids the coalition-building effort and helps explain why Kerry is not shown the door.

A key slice of the regional elite — educated and globalized, but not starry-eyed — considers the Western obsession with free elections to be naive and destructive. The argument says that societies with high illiteracy, little democratic history or infrastructure, and tribal culture shot through with radical Islamic influences are simply not ready for the responsibility of majority rule. It is better, they reason, to enable a type of managed democracy — like in Egypt where the previously elected Islamist party has been outlawed and decapitated — or a lengthy transition or the kind that is offered by King Abdullah in Jordan. For the United States' current coalition project, this means getting into bed with less-than-democratic countries that, after the frustrations of the Arab Spring, do not welcome meddling in their political systems.

The jihadis are aiming for a form of utopia, from their perspective. But most people in the Middle East have grown accustomed to compromise — to accepting and even embracing the least bad option. In this way, secular Palestinians accept Hamas, preferring Islamist oppression to the corruption of secular rulers like Yasser Arafat. Many Libyans are surely nostalgic for their stability and reasonable prosperity under Moammar Gadhafi. There was no political freedom and even the hint of insanity at the top. But it could be seen as less bad than the current situation with two competing governments, neither in control, violent Islamist militias holding Tripoli and Benghazi, and foreign workers fleeing for their lives. Many Syrians are concluding that the Assad regime — secular and commercially competent, if capable of using chemical weapons on its own people — may be the least bad available option as well, if the likely replacement is a coalition of jihadis. Western leaders fret that hitting the Islamic State group in Syria may help Assad, but many in the region find that a palatable outcome, even if they won't say so publicly. Others hope for an optimal solution: Hit the jihadis, and also finally support in earnest the rapidly disintegrating Free Syrian Army — the so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels who have almost been forgotten as so much of the region has gone up in flames.

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Kareem and Time Magazine

This week Kareem Andul-Jabbar posted on the Time Magazine website that the upcoming violent "race war" that is about to break out is well-justified. His idea is that blacks deserve to riot and cause death and mayhem because they are poor and being held back by wealthy whites. I disagree with this 100%.

First of all, poverty doesn't cause crime. My relatives have been dirt-poor for over 100 years and yet have been extremely law abiding (not including the very minor incident where my Mormon grandmother had to bootleg booze). Being poor doesn't automatically make one a criminal, nor is it a fair excuse to be one. Many people are actually career criminals and get away with dozens of crimes (some estimates are 100 crimes) before being caught and punished; usually for a very brief period of time and certainly not long enough to prevent re-occurance. Poverty MAY be a factor in crime, but it's certainly not the ONLY factor.

Second, blacks in the United States have literally received (free of charge) trillions and trillions of dollars in free housing, free medical care, free food, even free cell phones. One estimate is that black Americans have gotten over 17 TRILLION dollars in aid over the last 50 years, an enormous number; one that no other group in America has ever received. For black people to complain that they are being held back by whites, but in fact being subsidized by the very same whites to the tune of trillions of dollars is not just insane, its outrageous. If the USA is so terrible to blacks, we should then shut down all aid and support to this "special group".

Finally, the situation in Missouri over the rioting in Ferguson shows the mentality of these hooligans. The government should intervene more strongly (Democratic Governor Nizon waited 3 days before declaring a state of emergency and a absurdly limited curfew). All residents taking part in looting and rioting are obviously strong enough to go to work, and anyone found committing these crimes should have their EBT card permanently disabled: making a VERY public announcement about this would curb these crimes quickly enough, I am sure.

In the end the REAL issue is too many people are out of work and able to cause chaos and mayhem. Idle hands are the Devils workshop is clearly true in the case of Ferguson, Missouri.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Monday, July 14, 2014

Sunday, July 13, 2014

20 Reasons You Wouldn’t Want To Live In An America Controlled By Liberals Like Obama

The only thing more disturbing than the arrogance, incompetence, and lawlessness of Barack Obama’s administration is that most liberals are perfectly fine with everything he’s doing. It’s shocking that there are so many Americans who don’t care about the Constitution, the rule of law, or even what happens to the country just as long as someone they agree with ideologically is in charge. In fact, the only time liberals seem to get really upset these days is if someone criticizes Barack Obama or tries to put ANY KIND of restraint on his power. Want to know how America would look if liberals like Barack Obama had complete control of the country?

1) Abortion would be the only “choice.” Almost everything else including light bulbs, TVs, health care plans, cars, and the schools your child goes to would be chosen for you by people in D.C.

2) You could be sued for failing to warn people that you are about to say something that could conceivably be offensive to women, gays, transsexuals, or minorities.

3) Every sports fan of teams like the Redskins, Braves, Chiefs, Indians, Blackhawks, and Seminoles would be branded as a bigot and all of those teams would be forced to change their names.

4) We would have open borders and anyone who walks across would be welcome to sign up as a citizen and collect welfare, food stamps, and Social Security.

5) It would be illegal to say the Pledge of Allegiance or fly an American flag because it might “offend people.”

6) All criticism of black and Hispanic politicians would be shrugged off and treated as racism.

7) Government investigations of liberal wrongdoing would be handled by friends, associates, or campaign contributors of the liberal being charged.

8) So many nuclear and coal plants would be shut down that we’d end up with regularly scheduled blackouts in many parts of the country.

9) Anyone could choose not to work and get a monthly stipend from the state — well, until the money runs out.

10) Cities, states, and even well-connected big businesses that spend irresponsibly and go broke could always be bailed out by the federal government.

11) Women would have to get mandatory abortion counseling from Planned Parenthood before giving birth just to make sure they are ready to have a child.

12) Conservative talk radio, blogs, websites and especially Fox News would be regulated out of existence and only government-approved media sources would be allowed.

13) Christians and conservatives would have to hide their beliefs to get government jobs.

14) The IRS would be allowed to audit people solely for contributing to conservative candidates or being a member of conservative groups.

15) Men who have sex with women who are drinking would be treated as rapists by default.

16) Merit and even basic competence would be secondary in importance to hiring people who are the right race or sex for a job.

17) Any child who plays with a toy gun would be considered a potential psychopath and expelled from school.

18) Americans would only be allowed to buy tiny, overpriced electric cars that don’t work very well.

19) It would be illegal to oppose gay marriage.

20) Guns would be confiscated from everyone except the criminals, the cops, the military, and the bodyguards for rich liberals.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Is Immigration Dead?
Published on on June 24, 2014

The political fallout caused by the expected immigration of 90,000 children this year (52,000 so far) over the Mexican border completely recasts the immigration debate. No longer must Republicans hypothesize or may Democrats deny that amnesty catalyzes illegal immigration. The children of Central America have resolved that question by descending on our border demanding admission and anticipating the right to stay.

Nor can the administration maintain even a pretense of tightening border security in return for legalization of those already here. President Obama has foreclosed that option and squandered any credibility by repeatedly dangling legalization and an end to deportations. As the children of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala have gotten the green light, Republicans come to realize that there will not be a border fence but a revolving door, if Obama has his way.

The 14 Senate Republicans who voted for an omnibus immigration bill relying on assurances that the border will be sealed must now realize that they have swallowed a total fiction. Obama has no intention of sealing anything.

Nor are the children wrong in thinking that they can get away with coming here and staying. In all of 2013, we deported 2,000 children, a handful compared to the 52,000 who have come here thus far in 2014.

Already, Democrats are pushing for legislation giving children free immigration lawyers, and estimates of the proportion that could be entitled to amnesty go as high as 40 percent. The 12-year-olds in Central America understand the real U.S. immigration policy a lot better than the White House does: Once they are here, they probably can stay. (And then bring their families.)

Before Obama stupidly lowered the likelihood of deportations and gave the impression that immigration was now the Latino equivalent of the Oklahoma Land Rush, there was a consensus in this country. The amendment introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) seemed to embody what Americans of both parties were willing to accept: Seal the border and then, gradually, begin legalizing those already here. Whether citizenship would follow remained a source of contention.

The consensus was based on Obama's excellent record in his first term at sealing the border. Helped by a bad economy in the U.S., the outflow of immigrants began to equal or exceed the influx. Among those already here, Obama increased the rate of deportation from about 250,000 annually under former Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton to more than 400,000.

But, as he geared up for reelection, Obama's need for Latino support led him to order the implementation of the Dream Act by an executive order, suspending eligible youth deportations.

As his second term has unfolded, Obama has cut deportations in half, virtually ended them for all but criminal immigrants, opened the possibility of amnesty for families of military and of Dreamers themselves, lowered employer fines and ordered border guards not to shoot.

These actions shattered the consensus that had begun to emerge and have doomed immigration reform.

But they have also set the cause of reform back years. No longer do Americans trust their government to enforce immigration laws, and they realize that the weaker the rules are, the more people will come.

This unexpected flood of children to the U.S. must undermine the faith of all but the most determined advocates of immigration reform. Obama's policies have massively backfired.

Sunday, June 15, 2014

China Is Ready to Use Its Military Might

By Joshua Kurlantzick
May 29, 2014 1:48 PM EDT

Over the past two months, as China’s maritime disputes with Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam have escalated, most foreign observers and American officials, though worried, have shown little concern that the conflicts would explode into a full-scale war. After all, for more than three decades China has profited enormously from being part of the global economic system. Its military, though growing, remains far less technologically advanced than American armed forces. And for 30 years, predictions that China one day would try to dominate its region by force have always been proven wrong.

Repeated warnings, with nothing coming of them, created a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario in Washington. In the early 1990s many human-rights activists, including some Democratic politicians, worried that China, ostracized after the Tiananmen crackdown, would lash out. China indeed fired missiles near Taiwan in 1995, but after the Clinton administration sent aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait, Beijing backed down. Instead it launched a charm offensive aimed at its neighbors, boosting aid, investment, and cultural diplomacy across the region. Western foreign policy leaders and China experts have come to assume that China has too much invested in the world today to smash it up. Beijing has “embraced global institutions and their rules and norms. … [That] has helped guide its spectacular economic growth and integration into the world economy,” notes China specialist Wendy Dobson of the University of Toronto, in a typical commentary about Beijing’s role in the world.

But this time the wolf might actually be here. China’s highly nationalistic new leadership may no longer simply accede to the existing international economic and security order; instead it appears to want to change that order, even if that means harming some of China’s most important trade ties. Beijing has started to show its tough-guy stance by, among other things, claiming ownership of islands lying between it and Japan and by enforcing its massive—and utterly ridiculous—claims to almost the entire South China Sea. But unlike 10 years ago, many of Beijing’s angry neighbors are no longer weaklings.

Why has China abandoned its smiling diplomacy, which helped it sign a free-trade agreement with Southeast Asia and gave it enormous influence over Asian governments? After all, by scaring countries such as Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam in recent years, China’s leaders have not only damaged trade relationships but also pushed many of these nations into the arms of the U.S.

Amid a war of words and water cannon with Vietnam, President Xi Jinping declared that “in Chinese blood, there is no DNA for aggression or hegemony.” But Xi almost surely approved the recent decision to move an oil rig into waters claimed by both China and Vietnam, and he is hardly backing down. After the anti-China riots in Vietnam, China’s foreign ministry declared that it was Hanoi, not Beijing, that was “distorting the facts [and] conflating right and wrong on the global stage” and implicitly threatened further punishment.

Today’s Chinese leaders, particularly those immediately below Xi, came of age after the Cultural Revolution. Instead of chaos and poverty, they have known an increasingly rich and powerful China. Within the Communist Party, the hawks have applied pressure on top leaders to take tougher and tougher policies. They have a ready audience: Xi himself always had nationalist leanings and came into office vowing to restore the greatness China enjoyed for centuries. And compared with even a decade ago, when most Chinese wanted their leaders to focus on continuing the country’s economic miracle, the ever-richer middle class is interested in foreign relations and staunchly backs a more forceful leadership.

With China’s impressive weathering of the global economic downturn and with the rest of Asia becoming dependent on trade and investment from China, Beijing believes that its territorial rivals cannot, over the long run, afford to fight back. Although China’s actions might lead its neighbors to work with the U.S., many Chinese officials believe rightly or wrongly that Asian nations cannot align with a weakening U.S. forever. What’s more, China has effectively defanged the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) so that the organization cannot stand up for members such as the Philippines or Vietnam. Beijing has done so by essentially buying the loyalty of some Asean countries, such as Cambodia. Since the Asean nations operate by consensus and unanimity, China needs only one country on its side to sabotage the group.

The Philippines had developed warm feelings for the Chinese during the late 1990s and early 2000s, when China invested in a massive new railway project in the Manila region and became one of the country’s biggest foreign aid donors. But those feelings have curdled. Filipinos are coming to the conclusion that Beijing is serious about claiming all of the South China Sea and will not settle for anything less. When Philippine President Benigno Aquino III publicly questioned the claims, China disinvited him to a trade fair, even though such diplomatic snubs are almost unheard of.

Aquino recently told Bloomberg News that he wakes up every day thinking about China’s threats to his country. Manila’s dilapidated navy is no challenge to China’s military, which just acquired its first aircraft carrier. Since 2010 the Philippine government, which two decades ago threw out U.S. bases, has been sending one top official after another to Washington to demand, cajole, and plead for military equipment and other aid.

China’s military buildup and more aggressive behavior has sparked an arms race, with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam recently purchasing submarines, cruisers, fighter jets, and other arms. Southeast Asia’s arms purchases are growing faster than almost any other region in the world, with military spending rising 3.6 percent in 2013, according to an analysis by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. China boosted its military spending by more than 12 percent last year.

All-out conflict in Asia is not inevitable, despite China’s burgeoning power and nationalism. If the Asean nations were able to unite more effectively, it could apply diplomatic pressure on China to negotiate some of the claims, reducing the possibility of military conflict. A hotline connecting top Chinese leaders to the capitals of Southeast Asia doesn’t exist. But if one were put in place, it might help prevent small incidents from escalating into war. Otherwise, the potential for conflict is high. If China tried to move Philippine marines already encamped on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal, Manila, riding a wave of nationalist sentiment, might feel compelled to strike back, launching an attack on Chinese ships. If China struck back with its own navy and air force, Manila would have no one to talk to immediately in Beijing to stop the violence from escalating.

There is also immense risk that the U.S. would be drawn into fighting. The Obama administration has stepped up arms sales to the Philippines and in April 2014 signed a defense agreement with the country that will allow U.S. forces to use Manila’s bases. In 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech in which she declared that the South China Sea was a “national interest” of the U.S., the first time it had been referred to that way. At the time almost all Obama administration officials privately counseled reporters, policy analysts, and Asian leaders that China would never precipitate a war that could entangle the U.S. But that was when saying anything to the contrary was crying wolf. The countries of Southeast Asia see the wolf at the door. And with Washington increasingly committing itself to backing Asian partners, the U.S. might feel compelled to join a conflict as well.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Dead Broke Hillary

Hillary Understands "Hard Life" - She And Bill Feel Your Pain
Published on on June 11, 2014

First, Hillary Clinton outright lied about her family's financial situation at the end of her husband's Presidency.  Telling Diane Sawyer that they were "dead broke," she apparently forgot about the $22 million in book deals they signed before they left the White House.  And the two multi-million dollar homes they bought while he was still in office.

Most people wouldn't call that dead broke.  But the Clintons aren't like most people.

Now, at the beginning of her book tour, Hillary Clinton is back-pedaling, trying to clean up her gaffe and show some empathy for the folks out there who have suffered in the recession and its aftermath.  Here's her message: She's just like the rest of us working stiffs, just trying to keep up with debts, mortgages, and tuition.  Really.  She knows just what it's like out there.

After making over $150 million since they left the White House, Clinton says she understands about the "hard life" that many people have to go through, saying it "wasn't easy" for her and Bill to get together the money to pay for their two mortgages and Chelsea's education after they left the White House.

Her husband told people "I feel your pain."  Now, she feels it, too.

Is she kidding?

Hillary Clinton has no idea how regular people live.  In her world, "hard times" means you have to get one of your millionaire friends to put up over a million dollars for a mortgage that you can't afford for a house you won't really be living in. And then you get lots of other people to donate tax free gifts of expensive china, silver, and furniture to fill the new house.  The rest you take from the White House and you're all set.  No need to worry about a thing.      

That's what people do in hard times, right?  Well, that's what Hillary Clinton did.

While living in the White House, the most luxurious residence in the United States, the Clintons paid only for food, dry cleaning, clothing and personal expenses.  The taxpayers paid for everything else -- their housing, maids, chefs, flowers, electricity, cars and transportation, insurance, subscriptions and books, entertaining and travel.

But unlike any other recent presidents, the Clintons went even further.  When they wanted a special vacation every year, they asked people they had never even met to lend them stunning vacation homes in Martha's Vineyard and the Virgin Islands.  They also borrowed Senator Jay Rockefeller's Jackson Hole estate in Wyoming when polls showed that the voters didn't like them hobnobbing with the rich and famous in the Vineyard.  But wherever they went, there was never a thought of paying for anything themselves.  How could they?  They were barely getting along.

In 1999, Hillary decided what she wanted to run for Senator from New York. There was one problem: she needed a residence in the State of New York.  It could have been just a one bedroom rental apartment, but that wouldn't have been posh enough for the First Lady.  So, instead, she bought a $1.75 million home in tony Chappaqua, N.Y.  There was one other problem: the Clintons didn't think they could qualify for a mortgage because of outstanding legal debts.  So what do people do when they can't qualify for a mortgage?

Most people would simply give up on buying a house they knew they could not afford.  But, if you're Hillary Clinton, you don't give up easily.  She wanted the house.  End of story.  So, if a bank wouldn't lend her $1.3 million, she'd just find a rich friend who would.  Think about it: The President of the United States with his hands out, begging his rich pals to put up over a million dollars so his wife could have an expensive house.  First, they tapped the White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, who initially agreed to the handout, but then backed out.  Maybe he figured out that it was inappropriate for the President to ask an employee to pay for his house.

After Bowles backed out, Terry McAuliffe happily jumped in to help out the first couple and deposited $1.3 million with the mortgage bank to guarantee the Clinton's payments.  Problem solved.

The "dead broke" couple made a $350,000 down payment.  Then, no worries.  To furnish it, they looted the White House and moved out furniture that had been donated to the home of the nation's chief executive.  Oh, and then they set up a gift registry -- like a bridal registry -- for wealthy donors to buy them expensive china, flatware, and furniture.  Hillary chose the Spode Stafford Flowers.  A five-piece place setting retails at almost $800.00 today.  She got over 16 place settings.  A United States Senator can't serve dinner on any old kind of plate.

QUESTION:  If you were "dead broke," would you buy a $1.7 million house that you didn't plan to live in for a few years?  Would you have $350,000 for a down payment?

And then, a year later, would you buy another $2.75 million house in D.C.?

That's what the Clintons did and that's why they know all about the 'hard times.'  As Hillary said, it wasn't easy making all of this work.

Obama and Change

Monday, June 09, 2014

Obama Frees War Criminals

The "scandals" that come from Washington are so frequent they tend to desensitize us. I pray that does not happen with last week's release of the "Taliban Dream Team" from Guantanamo Bay.

In a moment of unusual candor, Obama conceded that they could "absolutely" go back to the battlefield and threaten the lives of Americans. But Obama assured us that their release "was conditioned on the Qataris keeping eyes on them… We will be keeping eyes on them."

The White House can't keep eyes on the IRS or the VA, but we're supposed to trust it can keep eyes on these thugs?

One of the Taliban 5 has already vowed to return to Afghanistan to wage jihad against us. On CNN yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry dismissed concerns that these terrorists might rejoin the fight. "I honestly think that's just a lot of baloney," Kerry said. Feel safer now?

There is a growing chorus of apologists at left-wing think tanks and in the media arguing that the released detainees pose no serious risk because they are aging and out-of-shape.

That completely misses the point. The Taliban 5 were not fighters -- they were leaders and government ministers. If the Taliban had a Pentagon, these would be their four-star generals!

This deal has demoralized our rank-and-file soldiers. Worse, it has encouraged our enemies. The Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Omar called the deal "a great victory." It feeds the impression that America is in full retreat in the battle against radical Islam.

But news of this deal has also sent shock waves of fear and anger throughout many Afghan villages. Two of the Taliban 5 -- Mohammed Fazl and Norullah Noori -- are wanted by the U.N. for war crimes involving the massacres of thousands of Afghan civilians.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Fazl led a "scorched-earth offensive" in 1999 that "systematically demolished entire villages, blowing up houses, burning fields and seeding the land with mines." According to some estimates, 300,000 people were forced to flee for their lives. Noori is accused of massacring 8,000 Afghan Shiites in the Balkh province in 1998.

The Obama Administration just let these war criminals escape justice in exchange for a likely deserter.

Thursday, June 05, 2014

Who We Gave Up For The Traitor

Senator John McCain, who spent years as a POW in Vietnam's infamous "Hanoi Hilton," referred to the terrorists released from GITMOthis week as "the hardest of the hard core. These are the highest high-risk people."

This is not the first time the Obama Administration has negotiated for the release of the Taliban 5, as they are known. But when news of previous talks leaked, administration officials were summoned to Capitol Hill to explain themselves. CNN reports that "Two years ago, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress all five had been assessed as both too dangerous to release and too difficult to put on trial."

So, who are the Taliban 5 that Obama just released? They are: Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa and Mohammed Nabi Omari.

Fazl was a top Taliban general and is considered a war criminal by the United Nations, wanted for the murder of thousands of Afghan Shiites. One Taliban leader called Fazl's release "the best news I have heard in at least 12 years. His return is like pouring 10,000 Taliban fighters into the battle on the side of jihad. … His freedom will definitely inspire the whole Taliban movement."

Noori, also a Taliban general, was personally recruited by Osama bin Laden. He is also wanted by the U.N. for war crimes.

Wasiq was a former intelligence minister for the Taliban and directed much of Al Qaeda's pre-9/11 intelligence training. After the 9/11 attacks, he was instrumental in organizing tribal opposition against the U.S. invasion.

Khairkhwa was the former Taliban governor of Herat and heavily involved in heroin trafficking for Al Qaeda. He was also instrumental in convincing the Iranians, despite their Shiite/Sunni differences, to aid the Taliban's terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Omari was a top Taliban commander who coordinated Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Under the terms of the deal, they will supposedly spend one year in custody in Qatar. But at least a quarter of all GITMO detainees, including those deemed "low-risk," have gone back to the battlefield. These thugs are top leaders. The odds are overwhelming that we will see their handiwork once again. 

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Dealing With the Mexican Drug Cartels (Permanently)

Well, I guess it takes just an average American working a regular job to figure out how to best deal with our nations woes (that would be me, btw). Drifting off to bed last night I suddenly realized how to utterly destroy the Mexican Drug Cartels, those organizations of total misery. Its easy, in fact, to do and here is how:

Give the President of Mexico command authority over 2-3 armed drone wings (based in America but flown over Mexican soil). They would have to be under Mexican supervision because no politician in our southern neighbor would ever be relected if they knew US forces were killing Mexicans on Mexican soil. Drones could be used to kill drug lords in their compounds, or on their way to meetings, or to kill the people who are killing the Mexican police, mayors, and other government officials.

Eliminating the influence of the drug lords south of the border has been a near-impossible task. The huge amounts of money flowing through the cartels pockets are more than enough to bribe anyone, and those people foolish enough not to take the bribes are often gunned down in the streets, or even beheaded. Even the Mexican military has been corrupted by the tens of billions of dollars of drugs flowing through Mexico and into the United States (and beyond). The fact is that the armed forces of Mexico have been so corrupted that the government in Mexico City has been unable to truly stamp out the cartels and their lethal influence using federal firepower. Drug lords are often tipped off by military officials when a raid is being planned or executed, avoiding the traps to capture or kill them, and here in lies the answer: armed drones dont tell people they are coming and the enemy cannot be tipped off. They are also rarely seen, being somewhat stealthy.

In Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and nations like Yemen, armed drones like the Reaper have been very very effective in eliminating terrorists. In fact, more than 70% of Al Qaida's leadership has been eliminated over the last 10+ years by such tactics. The Israelis regularly use armed drones to kill terrorist leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other death-dealing groups. Imagine what the President of Mexico could do in 6 months against the drug cartels in his own country if he has such firepower available to him. To prevent any unathorized use, the drones could still be stationed in the USA, or near Mexico City under US troop control (as "advisors").

Eliminating the lethal flow or death and drugs from Mexico into the USA should be a top priority for any administration and this armed drone proposal should be implemented as soon as possible. I hope the folks in Washington DC are listening....

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Monica Monica Monica

Three Chinese Nuclear Missile Submarines Photographed in South China Sea

China ups tensions after sinking Vietnam fishing boat
BY: Bill Gertz   
May 28, 2014 5:00 am

China has deployed three nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines to a naval base in the South China Sea, according to a recent photo of the vessels that appeared on the Internet.

The three Type 094 missile submarines were photographed at the Yalong Bay naval base on Hainan Island, located at the northern end of the South China Sea.

The submarines appear to be part of China’s plan to begin the first regular sea patrols of nuclear missile submarines.

Adm. Samuel Locklear, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, voiced concerns about Chinese missile submarines in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in March.

“China’s advance in submarine capabilities is significant,” Locklear said. “They possess a large and increasingly capable submarine force. China continues the production of ballistic missile submarines. … This will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent, probably before the end of 2014.”

Disclosure of the strategic submarine deployment comes as China sharply increased tensions over the weekend after one of its naval vessels rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat in disputed waters claimed by both countries in the region.

Meanwhile, China on Tuesday called recent Japanese military aircraft incursions during joint Chinese-Russian war games in the East China Sea both dangerous and provocative, further escalating tensions between Beijing and Tokyo.

The photograph of the three missile submarines is the latest example of state-controlled media signaling new strategic nuclear capabilities by China.

The submarines, also called the Jin-class, are equipped with 12 multiple-warhead JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missiles that have a range of up to 4,900 miles.

Meanwhile, one of the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered attack submarines based in Guam last week deployed for missions in the Asia Pacific and likely will conduct surveillance of China’s submarine forces in the region.

The submarine was monitoring a large Chinese-Russian joint naval exercise in the northern East China Sea that ended this week.

The Air Force also has begun long-range Global Hawk drone flights over Asia as part of a summer deployment of two of the unmanned surveillance aircraft to Japan.

On Tuesday, a Chinese general called the intrusion into military exercises by Japanese warplanes “dangerous” and “provocative.”

“Japan unilaterally stirred up the military jets’ encounter over the East China Sea,” Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, told Xinhua, referring to the Japanese jets’ confrontation by Chinese jets.

The jets flew in the unilaterally declared Chinese air defense identification zone that Tokyo, Washington and other Asia states do not recognize.

The incident occurred as Chinese and Russian warships were engaged in naval maneuvers.

“Japan’s move, like its decision to purchase the Diaoyu [Senkaku] Islands in 2012 so as to change the status quo, is very dangerous and provocative,” Sun said

The encounter between Japanese and Chinese jet fighters took place May 24 over open waters as the Japanese sought to monitor the military exercises.

The Vietnamese fishing boat sank Monday after colliding with a Chinese patrol vessel near the disputed Paracel Islands, in the South China Sea, where China raised tensions by beginning undersea oil drilling.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters the vessel sinking is troubling.

“We remain concerned about dangerous conduct and intimidation by vessels operating in this area by the Chinese,” she said. “We continue to call on all parties to exercise restraint and take steps to lower the tensions and conduct themselves in a safe and, of course, professional manner.”

Relations between Hanoi and Beijing remain tense over the maritime dispute. Protests were held recently in communist Vietnam against communist China.

There have been unconfirmed reports that Chinese military forces were massing near the Chinese border with Vietnam. The two nations fought a brief conflict early 1979, after Chinese forces invaded and captured several cities before retreating.

Regarding the missile submarines, Andrei Pinkov, a military analyst with Kanwa Defense who reported on the submarines May 1, said the three submarines at Hainan are a sign Beijing is speeding up the pace of deployments. Also, a review of the photo indicates that one of the three submarines could be a more advanced missile submarine called the Type 096, based on an analysis of the length of missile submarines, he stated in his journal Kanwa Defense Review.

The deployment is “intended to give the new SSBN better protection in the deep waters of the South China Sea,” Pinkov stated, using the military acronym for ballistic missile submarine.

Hans M. Kristensen, an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists, said China now has three or four Type-094s.

China over the past decade has built an extensive naval infrastructure for its underwater forces, including upgraded naval bases, submarine hull demagnetization facilities, underground facilities and high-bay buildings for missile storage and handling, and covered tunnels and railways to conceal the activities from prying eyes in the sky.

It is not known if the Chinese will deploy actual nuclear warheads with the submarines or continue the past Chinese practice of keeping warheads in central storage sites for deployment in a crisis.

“The South Sea Fleet naval facilities on Hainan Island are under significant expansion,” Kristensen stated in a recent blog post. “The nuclear submarine base at Longpo has been upgraded to serve as the first nuclear submarine base in the South China Sea.”

The base also includes a submarine tunnel that is part of an underwater complex of nuclear facilities on Hainan.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported in July that China would begin the first sea patrols of the Type 094 some time this year.

China conducted a test flight of the JL-2 missile, the system to be deployed on the Type 094, in August 2012.

A report by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center last year stated that the JL-2 “will, for the first time, allow Chinese SSBNs to target portions of the United States from operating areas located near the Chinese coast.”

China’s jingoistic Global Times on Oct. 28 published an unprecedented report that revealed a nuclear missile strike on the western United States with JL-2 missiles could kill up to 12 million Americans.

The Obama administration and senior Navy officials were silent regarding the nuclear attack threat, which included graphics showing nuclear plumes and collateral damage caused by radiation.

The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated in a report several years ago that China is planning to deploy an anti-satellite missile on its missile submarines.

Anti-satellite missiles are key elements of China’s anti-access, area denial capabilities designed to drive the U.S. Navy out of Asia.

China only recently began publicizing its nuclear missile submarine forces, mainly through semi-official disclosures on so-called military enthusiast websites.